Appeal No. 95-3935
Application 08/162,995
become an airborne irritant (col. 2, lines 45-52), and the teaching by Sanchez that
polypropylene fibers can be used instead of glass fibers in lightweight wall panels
(abstract; col. 6, lines 16-18 and 68), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use polypropylene fibers instead of glass fibers in Webb’s panel system in order
to avoid skin irritation and other health hazards (answer, page 6). We are not convinced
by this argument because the examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, why
these references would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, making a
composite which has the flexibility requirement recited in appellants’ claim 1, from which
claim 6 ultimately depends. The examiner argues that Webb’s coated mesh is inherently
flexible (answer, page 10). For the reason given above, this argument is not persuasive.
Thus, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the sheathing material recited in appellants’ claim 6.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007