Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177
therebetween would seem to be the only reasonable explanation inferable from
Cherry for the disclosed adherence between the major side surfaces 67 and 77 (col.
3, ll. 7-11).
Furthermore, Cherry’s disclosure of the process of creating the
chemical/physical bond between the hard and soft layers is essentially similar to
the description of the bond forming process set forth in Appellant’s specification
(see the paragraph bridging pp. 5 and 6). Both methods involve the steps of
injecting a melted soft plastic material into a mold cavity at a temperature and
pressure sufficient to melt a surface layer of a formed hard plastic part and then
permitting the melted plastics to cool to beneath their softening points. The
injection temperature and pressure present during the molding of Cherry’s soft
layer would certainly produce at least some intermixing of the injected soft
material and the melted hard material. Appellant has failed to explain or
demonstrate, and it is not evident, why the resulting chemical/physical bond would
not embody a diffusion bond exhibiting a molecular concentration gradient as
broadly recited in claim 25. It also goes without saying that Cherry would have
suggested using compatible hard and soft thermoplastic materials (see col. 4, ll. 20-
38) suitable for effecting the melting and bonding described therein.
Appellant also has failed to persuasively support the argument (see, for
example, Br. 6) that the applied prior art would not have suggested a bond that
prevents separation of Cherry’s outer layer (soft layer 60) from the front panel
(body portion 78) of the body (hard layer 70) upon deployment of the air bag.
Figure 4 of the Cherry reference illustrates the door/cover 12 after deployment of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013