Appeal No. 1997-2256
Application No. 08/427,706
great as to permanently hold the skin material and not so
light that excessive sliding of the skin material into the
mold occurs (Matsui ‘201, col. 5 line 57 to col. 6 line 6). By
contrast, the teachings of Matsui EP are characterized by
appellants as providing for permanent fixing of the skin
material by the use of pins (7). Given the contrary teachings
in Matsui ‘201 requiring the skin material to be tentatively
held so that it can slide into the mold during molding and the
teachings in Matsui EP of rigidly holding the skin material
via pins (7) that do not allow sliding or movement thereof,
appellants conclude that the examiner’s proposed combination
of the references is driven by improper hindsight, not
motivation from the prior art, and is therefore improper
(brief, page 10). We agree.
Moreover, like appellants (brief, pages 9 and 11-13), we
note that even if the applied prior art were to be combined in
the manner urged by the examiner, the resulting process would
not be that set forth in appellants’ claims on appeal.
Nothing in either Matsui ‘201 or Matsui EP teaches or suggests
controlling the tension of the skin material by locally
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007