Appeal No. 2004-1133
Application No. 09/796,253
the substrate part at a first temperature; and (3) expanding the
foamable material at a second temperature higher than the first
temperature with at least one expanding aid such that the foamed
material in an expanded state fills an intermediate space between
the surface of the substrate part and the molding surface of the
mold and bonds with the surface of the substrate part (Answer,
pages 3-4). The examiner recognizes that Masui does not explicitly
disclose that the foamed material comes “to bear” against the
molding surface but concludes that this occurrence would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art in order to produce a
final article which assumes the shape of the mold cavity (Answer,
page 4).1 With regard to claim 2 on appeal, the examiner finds
that Masui effectively teaches the “succession of temperatures”
recited in claim 2 by the disclosure of heating to within a range
of temperatures (id.).2 We agree. We take note that the function
1The examiner also finds that Masui discloses complete
expansion of the foamable material to fill the voids between the
spheres, thus supporting the obviousness of producing an article
which assumes the shape of the mold cavity (Answer, page 4). We
also note that Masui repeatedly teaches that it is preferred to
fill the mold with the composite beads in a bulk volume of 100%
(e.g., see col. 6, ll. 26-28 and 53-57).
2The examiner also makes findings and conclusions of law
regarding the rejection of claims 13 and 15-18 under section
103(a) over Masui in view of Hart (Answer, pages 4-5). However,
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007