Appeal No. 1997-2072
Application No. 08/261,544
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Rains,
Primeaux, Smith ‘260 and Smith ‘634. Claims 1 through 9 stand
rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Kia, Nodelman, Primeaux, Smith ‘260 and Smith
‘634.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that the aforementioned § 103 rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the aforementioned § 103 rejections
since the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter. Our reasons
for this determination follow.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a process for
preparing a Class A surface, fiber reinforced molded article,
such as an automotive part, “which exhibits little or no
blistering when subjected to temperatures as high as 180 C.”o
See Jepson claim 1 in conjunction with page 2 of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007