Appeal No. 2001-1771 5
Application No. 09/205,782
foam was known and available as a permeable filamentary supporting material with
varying densities” (answer, page 7).
The examiner expands on this position in the “Response to Argument” section of
the answer, wherein the examiner states:
It is the opinion of the examiner that the structural limitations of the material
as well as the motivation to combine with Adkins are disclosed in AAPA.
The applicant has even stated in the arguments on page 9, lines 4-7 [of the
Amendment filed December 6, 1999 (Paper No. 9)], that
“Hogan [sic, Hogen][2] teaches for further development
purposes in a variety of applications, a new foam metal product
of intertwined and fused filaments with spacing between fused
filaments for permeation by a coolant; the foam metal product
appears to have an adjustable density of filament structure;
and those facts would not be an issue in this appeal”.
It is unclear how the applicant contends that it would not have been
obvious to modify a reference to comprise the coolant permeable material as
taught by Hogan [sic, Hogen] when he/she discloses that it is for the same
purpose the applicant has stated on page 4, lines 9-11 [of Paper No. 9],
which is to “provide coolant movement and direction, locally selectable
physical protection and shock resistance and electrical shielding”. . . . Since
no additional structure limitations defining a modification is claimed, the
examiner submits that the claimed structure is well known in the art for
cooling and the Applicant’s statements provide adequate proof that he/she
knows the same. In light of this, the examiner willfully submits that the
2The reference here to “Hogan” is believed to be directed to a six page
publication by Hogen Industries submitted by appellants in an Information Disclosure
Statement that further describes the material mentioned on page 9 of the specification.
A copy of this publication is attached to the first reply brief (Paper No. 20). The list of
references relied upon on page 5 of the answer does not include the Hogen publication.
The statement of the rejection on page 5 of the answer also does not mention the
Hogen publication. Therefore, it is presumed that the Hogen publication forms no part
of the rejection at issue that is before us for review.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007