Appeal No. 2005-0242
Application No. 09/224,980
(automotive upholstery fabric). We disagree with appellants for
the following reasons.
We believe that the combination of the references (whether
it is Gretzinger in view of Stumpf, or Stumpf in view of
Gretzinger) is a proper combination. Stumpf is within the field
of the inventors’ endeavor. Both Stumpf and Gretzinger are
directed to woven fabrics, as is appellants’ claimed subject
matter. The fabric support made in Stumpf is utilized in the
making of the membrane 210 depicted, for example, in Figure 30
and Figure 31 of Stumpf. This membrane forms part of the
seating for chair 30 shown in Figure 1. Gretzinger is directed
to woven furniture support materials. Gretzinger clearly
teaches that it is conventional to utilize UV stabilizers in
elastomeric filaments. The known benefits of utilizing UV
stabilizers are to protect a fabric against UV exposure. Given
that such UV exposure occurs to furniture, the benefits would be
useful in the invention of Stumpf, and hence, proper motivation
exists in the combination of references.
In view of the above, we affirm each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections involving the combination of Gretzinger and Stumpf.
CONCLUSION
All of the rejections are affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007