Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
With respect to claim 20, Appellant argues that Hoffmann may not be
relied on to show that it would have been obvious to eliminate rollers in
Londrigan because Hoffmann is not concerned with low binder fiber mats
(Br. 13). As again properly pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant’s
arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to address the Examiner’s
explanation of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
from the combined teachings of the references (Answer 13). “When a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740,
82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,
282, 96 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (1976)).
In summary, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie
showing of obviousness as to claims 1-13 and 20 which Appellant has failed
to rebut.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Londrigan in view of Hoffmann is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(i)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION
P. O. BOX 1967
MIDLAND, MI 48641-1967
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: September 9, 2013