Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
Londrigan’s process with a single supply roll of composite comprising a low
binder fiber mat and a support mat (Answer 5). According to the Examiner,
the motivation for this modification is process simplification, i.e.,
elimination of multiple feed rollers and the need to synchronize feeding
speeds of the low binder fiber mat supply and the support mat supply
(Answer 6). The Examiner relies on Hoffmann as evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art “could effectively and interchangeably supply a low
binder fiber mat and a support mat as a composite on a single feeding roll or
separately feed them in different feeding rolls to a foam injection station and
a laminating station” (Answer 5-6).
Appellant concedes that Hoffmann discloses forming a composite web
comprising a “meshwork web” and facer sheet for use as feeding stock in a
foaming process (Br. 5-6). However, Appellant contends that Hoffmann
fails to disclose that the meshwork web may be an expandable fiber mat and,
more specifically, a low binder fiber mat (Br. 6). Appellant contends that
Hoffmann, at best, “suggests a narrow form of composite web consisting of
a low binder fiber mat and a facing sheet could be obvious to try – and that
is insufficient to make the invention obvious” (Br. 6).
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellant, the issue
before us is: Are the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner sufficient
to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon considering the
combined teachings of Londrigan and Hoffmann, would have been
motivated to replace the individual supply rolls of low binder fiber mat and
support mat in Londrigan’s process with a single supply roll of composite
comprising a low binder fiber mat and a support mat as claimed? For the
reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013