Appeal 2007-1675
Application 10/158,708
Limited web page teaches that “[a]lmost any thermoplastic sheet material
can be [thermo]formed. . .” (Br. Exhibit A).
We find no evidence on this record that the polyester resin taught by
Schulz is an acrylic, or a thermoplastic that is capable of being
thermoformed. Wimmer fails to make up for this deficiency in Schulz. To
the contrary, Wimmer teaches that polyester resin is a thermosetting
material, not a material that is capable of being thermoformed. As Appellant
explains, Wimmer teaches a bathtub “produced by shaping thermoplastic
material into a body and then applying a sprayable mixture of thermosetting
unsaturated polyester resin material and a bond-improving additive to the
body to form a coating thereon” (Br. 5). Wimmer, however, fails to teach a
cap and a shell, which are both produced from a thermoplastic material.
Accordingly, the product taught by the combination of Schulz and Wimmer
is materially different from the product set forth in Appellant’s claim 1.
On reflection, we find that claim 1 requires that the shell and cap of
Appellant’s claimed fixture must be made from a material that is capable of
being thermoformed, e.g., a thermoplastic material. Neither Schulz nor
Wimmer teach a fixture comprising a shell and cap that is made from a
material that is capable of being thermoformed, e.g., a thermoplastic.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 14-25, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Schulz
and Wimmer.
The combination of Schulz, Wimmer, and Sauter:
Claims 27, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schulz, Wimmer, and Sauter. Claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013