Appeal No. 95-4846
Application 08/023,592
(d) curing the formed inner and outer portions under
conditions of temperature and time to form an impeller disk
having inner and outer portions of polyurethane resin having
different flexibilities, the outer portion being bonded to the
inner portion and having greater flexibility than the inner
portion.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Hoppe et al. (Hoppe) 3,052,927 Sep. 11, 1962
Roberts 3,949,125 Apr. 6, 1976
Trowbridge et al. (Trowbridge)4,171,166 Oct. 16, 1979
Probst 4,768,574 Sep. 6, 1988
Claims 14 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hoppe in view of Probst, Roberts and Trowbridge
(answer, page 4). We reverse this rejection for reasons which
follow.
OPINION
The examiner concedes that Hoppe “forms a different
composite article thus requiring that the polyurethane materials
be cast in a different order” but this difference in the order
in which the two polyurethanes were cast “was a mere obvious
matter of material and article design choices which were of no
patentable consequence” since the claimed method must be
distinguished manipulatively (answer, pages 8-9). In fact,
Hoppe discloses a specific embodiment in Figure 14 of a propeller
having high and low density regions similar to the article
described in Figure 4 of Hoppe (see column 7, lines 30-41, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007