Appeal 2007-1486
Application 10/339,003
2. the Examiner's position
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to have used Isoda's elastomeric net material as the scrim material of
Bafford to create a seat having superior heat resistance, durability and
cushioning properties (Answer, 4).
3. the Appellant's position
Appellant argues that the Examiner has summarily concluded that it
would have been obvious to combine Bafford and Isoda without providing a
factual basis to support the obviousness conclusion (Appeal Br., 4, 7-10;
Reply Br., 2-8). Appellant maintains that the Examiner is required to point
out an objective teaching in the prior art, either from the references
themselves or from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, to
suggest bonding Isoda's elastomeric cushioning net material, instead of a
non-elastomeric fabric as described in Bafford, to a vinyl film layer to obtain
an upholstery fabric other than that it would made a better fabric (Appeal
Br., 8-9; Reply Br., 4). Appellant further argues that, in order to combine
Isoda with Bafford, "the vinyl material disclosed in Bafford would have to
be able to be extrusion coated onto the elastomeric three-dimensional
random loop structure material of Isoda to create a seating composite"
(Appeal Br., 11). Finally, Appellant argues that combining Isoda with
Bafford would destroy the teaching in Bafford to use non-elastomeric
materials to provide dimensional stability to the fabric because elastomeric
and non-elastomeric materials do not provide the same dimensional stability
(Appeal Br., 11).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013