Appeal No. 2005-0127 Page 3
Application No. 10/077,427
OPINION
Hendrix describes a weather stripping having a body portion (gripping portion 20) and a
sealing portion (sealing portion 30) as required by claim 1. Hendrix suggests a foamed
construction (Hendrix, col. 4, ll. 22-24 and ll. 41-43). However, Hendrix does not further
describe the cell size or density of the foam. Chen, on the other hand, indicates that
microcellular foams are a class of foams that have small cell sizes and high cell densities (Chen,
col. 1, ll. 22-24) and that “[t]he unique cell structure of microcellular foams lead to several
advantages over conventional foams including improved properties and appearance.” (Chen, col.
2, ll. 53-56). Chen describes a method for forming microcellular foams.
Appellants argue that the combination of the teachings of Hendrix and Chen does not
provide a workable result (Brief, p. 7). According to Appellants, Hendrix and Chen require
opposite approaches and the Hendrix approach is not compatible with forming a microcellular
product (Brief, p. 8). This is because, according to Appellants, Hendrix requires heating the
primary extrudate (which forms the gripping portion 20 of the weather stripping) after it exits the
die in order to secure the secondary extrudate (which forms the sealing portion 30) to the
primary extrudate (Brief, p. 7; see also Brief, pp. 4-5). According to Appellants, such heating is
not compatible with the formation of a microcellular structure because cooling upon exiting the
die is required to control the formation of cells in a microcellular material (Brief, pp. 7-8; see
also Brief, pp. 5-7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007