Appeal No. 2004-0027 Page 8
Application No. 09/513,089
the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one
or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Bascom, 43 CCPA 837, 230 F.2d
612, 614, 109 USPQ 98, 100 (1956)(“[T]he proper inquiry should not be limited to the specific
structure shown by the references, but should be into the concepts fairly contained therein, and
the overriding question to be determined is whether those concepts would suggest to one skilled
in the art the modification called for by the claims.”).
The evidence relied upon by the Examiner, as a whole, indicates that flame-laminating
polyurethane foams to textile strips by the steps of melting, applying, and pressing as claimed
was known in the art. Moreover, the reason or motivation for flame-laminating a textile material
to a polyurethane foam is expressly stated in that art: To add strength and rigidity (see, e.g.,
Richter, col. 16, ll. 12-21 and Dickey, col. 1, ll.65-71 and description thereafter of the textile as a
backing or reinforcing web). The Examiner has established that all aspects of the claimed
process were known in the prior art and further established, through objective evidence within
the prior art, that there was a reason or motivation for making the combination. That is enough
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 73 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellants have failed to persuade us that the Examiner’s rejection is based on an
incorrect legal standard, contains an incorrect legal determination, or contains a factual error
such that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. In other words, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007