Appeal No. 95-3935
Application 08/162,995
and consequently eliminate the appearance of barbs, thereby making it possible to
produce finishes without sharp relief, avoid premature soiling of the surface, and improve
the surface’s aesthetic appearance (col. 2, lines 23-28). Brouessard also teaches that his
fibrous material having resin drops thereon is sufficiently flexible to be wound into a roll
(col. 3, lines 32-35). The examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, why this
teaching 1) would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Webb’s Icote,
which is a very different material than Brouessard’s resin drops, such that the modified
Icote will not crack or crumble when the fiberglass mesh coated with the modified Icote is
rolled or folded, and 2) would have provided such a person with a reasonable expectation
that the modification would produce a product which is suitable for use in Webb’s wall
panel system. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re
Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness of the invention recited in appellants’ claims 1-5 and 7-9.
Rejection of claim 6
Appellants’ claim 6 recites that the fibers are polypropylene fibers. The examiner
argues that in view of the teaching by Randall that glass fibers can irritate the skin and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007