Appeal No. 2004-1133
Application No. 09/796,253
of a mold is to help form a structure identical in shape to the
mold and thus an expanded foam material composite would have to
touch or “bear against” the molding surface to fill the mold and
form the desired final molded structure. Additionally, we note
that appellants do not contest this position as set forth in the
Answer (page 4).
Appellant argues that Masui does not disclose “applying a
layer of an unfoamed or merely pre-foamed, foamable material to the
surface of the substrate part at a first temperature,” as recited
in claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page 8). Appellant argues that the
expandable beads of Masui are filled directly into the mold, in
contrast to appellant’s invention where the foamable material is
deposited on the surface of the substrate (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As correctly stated
by the examiner (Answer, page 5), Masui discloses face plate 3 is
deposited on the expandable composite beads (col. 6, ll. 57-58).
2(...continued)
as noted above, appellant does not specifically argue the
separate patentability of claims 13 and 15-18 (Brief, page 7).
Additionally, appellant does not argue or contest any of the
examiner’s findings from Hart (see the Brief in its entirety).
Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s findings and conclusions of
law regarding this rejection and a further discussion of Hart is
unnecessary to this decision. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379,
1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007