Appeal No. 2004-0027 Page 4
Application No. 09/513,089
evidence that the flame-laminating technique was known in the art for adding strength (Answer,
pp. 5-6 citing Richter, the Admitted Prior Art, and Dickey). Based on the evidence, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to flame-
laminate a textile strip to the foam of Wilson to add strength (Answer, pp. 6-7).
Appellants argue that, in order to combine the teachings of the references in the manner
necessary to “arrive at” the presently claimed invention, it is required that one of ordinary skill in
the art modify the hydrophilic isocyanate-based foam of Wilson by omitting the superabsorbent
material Wilson describes as a component thereof from this foam (Brief, p. 4). It is Appellants’
position that the superabsorbent material is critical to the foams of Wilson (Id.). Appellants
further argue that even when considering the Wilson reference in combination with the Richter
reference, a logical basis for the modification of the Wilson reference is not found because the
combination would include a thin coating of a surfactant as taught by Richter and such surfactant
is not required by the presently claimed invention (Brief, pp. 6-7). Appellants further urge that it
is improper for the Examiner to rely upon the disclosure of flame-lamination techniques in the
specification as an “admission” and that substituting Dickey for the “admission” adds nothing to
the rejection (Brief, pp. 7-8).
Appellants have not convinced us of reversible error on the part of the Examiner.
As an initial matter, Appellants’ first argument, i.e., that in order to “arrive at” the
invention, the superabsorbent material described by Wilson must be omitted, assumes that the
claim requires such an omission. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007