Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177
the air bag and shows no such separation. Moreover, Kikuchi establishes that
separation between the hard and soft layers of similarly constructed air bag covers
was a problem known in the art. This knowledge would have provided the artisan
with ample motivation or suggestion to choose the parameters of Cherry’s
door/cover and injection molding process so as to avoid the separation problem.
Appellant’s related observation that the bond between Cherry’s hard and soft
layers separates along the tear line 30 (see, for example, Br. 6) is of no moment.
As evidenced by Cherry’s Figure 3, the joint defined by the tear line 30 would be
subject to separation forces far different in kind and degree than those that might
tend to separate the outer layer (soft layer 60) from the front panel (body portion
78) of the body (hard layer 70).
Thus, the combined teachings of Cherry and Kikuchi, and the inferences that
can be fairly drawn therefrom, would have suggested a method of making a unitary
composite air bag cover responsive to the argued molecular concentration gradient
and diffusion bond limitation in claim 25.
Based on the totality of evidence and argument before us, the combination of
Cherry in view of Kikuchi proffered by the Examiner justifies a conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claim 25 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 25 as being unpatentable over Cherry in view of Kikuchi.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013