Appeal 2006-2299
Application 10/615,671
The § 103 rejection based on Kobayashi in view of Endo also is
improper for reasons unrelated to the infirmities discussed above.
According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the fabric
of Kobayashi . . . to reinforce cement in order to derive greater usage from
the fabric, as taught by Endo” (Answer 5). This obviousness conclusion is
not well taken.
Presumably, the Examiner’s above-quoted reference to “the fabric of
Kobayashi” relates to Patentee’s fabric/resin combination, that is, the
laminated composite board (Kobayashi, col. 4, ll. 63-64). However, the
applied references contain no teaching or suggestion of using this composite
board to reinforce cement. Likewise, these references provide no reasonable
expectation that the composite board would successfully reinforce cement.
On the other hand, if the Examiner’s reference to “the fabric of Kobayashi”
relates to Patentee’s fabric in the absence of resin, the proposed combination
of reference teachings would not result in the invention defined by the
rejected claim which requires a resinous coating.
Finally, the § 103 rejection based on Kobayashi, Endo, and Wu is
improper because this last-mentioned reference does not supply the above-
discussed deficiencies of Kobayashi and Endo.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013