Appeal No. 2004-0027 Page 9
Application No. 09/513,089
contentions of Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s position. We
conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claim 5 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
To reject claim 6, the Examiner adds Codos and King as evidence that it was known in
the prior art to use a pair of rotating rollers to press the textile and foam together during the
flame laminating process (Answer, p. 7). Appellants’ arguments again do not adequately
consider what the references as whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
There can be no question that pressing is required in the flame lamination process in order to
bond the two materials together. That this is the case is clearly evidenced by Dickey, Codos, and
King. King and Codos provide evidence that a rotating pair of rollers was a known method for
accomplishing the required pressing. The Examiner has established both that the claimed roller
operation was known in the art and that there was a reason for or suggestion of using that
operation to accomplish pressing (Answer, p. 7). We find no reversible error in the Examiner’s
fact finding nor in the application of the law to the facts.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 5 and 6 which has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007