Appeal No. 2004-2324
Application No. 10/226,852
examiner, Hale does not expressly teach the claimed specific
gravity of the polyurethane material nor, for that matter, other
properties recited by appellant. Indeed, Hale is silent on the
specific gravity of the polyurethane used to make the fairing.
However, as explained by the examiner, Nesbitt evidences that
thermoplastic polyurethanes used by appellant, namely Elastollan™
1185A and 1195A, were known in the art as exhibiting "excellent
low temperature properties, hydrolysis resistance and fungus
resistance" (column 13, lines 1-4). Consequently, we concur with
the examiner that the known properties of appellant's
polyurethane material would have made it obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to select such polyurethanes for making
the fairings of Hale. We find no merit in appellant's argument
that Nesbitt is non-analogous art because it is directed to a
polyurethane cover for a game ball. While Nesbitt is directed to
making game balls, the reference provides objective evidence that
the polyurethane material used by appellant for making fairings
was known in the art to possess properties that would be suitable
for fairings.
As for the § 103 rejection of the appealed claims over
Loshigian in view of Nesbitt, we agree with the examiner that
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007