Appeal No. 1999-2633
Application 08/680,325
Thus, the combination of Fujimoto and Hermann proposed by
the examiner is well founded. This combination also responds to
all of the limitations in claims 5 through 7, 9, 11 and 12. More
particularly, particles applied to the cavity-pocked exterior
surface of Fujimoto’s closed cell puff via Hermann’s surface
bonding technique (see column 8, line 66, through column 9, line
35; and column 12, lines 5 through 42) would result in the
particles being discontinuously adhered to the exterior surface
of Fujimoto’s closed cell foam substrate including the cavities
as set forth in claims 5 and 12, with the particles being
thermally fused to the exterior surface of the foam sponge as
recited in claims 9 and 12. Fujimoto’s silicone-modified EPDM
foam rubber constitutes a rubber as recited in claims 7, 11 and
12, and the exemplary polyethylene or polypropylene encapsulating
films of Hermann’s particles constitute thermoplastic resins as
recited in claims 6 and 12.2
On the other hand, the Fujimoto and Hermann combination does
not on its face result in an adhesive layer on the exterior
surface of the sponge substrate to which the particles are
2 Claims 6, 11 and 12 contain recitations of one or more
Markush groups (see MPEP § 2173.05(h)). The recitation of a
Markush group is met by the prior art if at least one of the
alternative elements in the group is met.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007