Appeal No. 2003-1176
Application No. 09/074,288
an upholstery skin that is bonded to the porous
substrate, as is required by the claims. While the
prior art teaches an article that is prepared using a
porous material, and includes an upholstery layer, it
is not until after the originally porous material has
become completely impregnated by a resin composition
and has lost its porous character that the upholstery
becomes bonded to the resulting non-porous substrate.
Thus, while the prior art teaches the individual
elements of the claims, it does not teach or suggest
the claimed combination. [Emphases original.]
Again, we find no merit in the appellants’ position. The
dispositive issue in this appeal seems to be whether appealed
claim 1 excludes the existence of a foam material within the
pores of the substrate (e.g., “porous fiberous [sic] material
having openings therein, wherein said moldable foam material
penetrates said openings and bonds to said porous material
through said openings” as recited in appealed claim 2). As
explained in our original decision, appealed claim 1 does not
exclude the existence of a foam material within the openings or
pores of the substrate material.
The porous nature of the glass fiber reinforcing materials
(i.e., substrate) described in the references never changes,
even after they are combined with a foam material to form the
final product. That is, even assuming that the openings or
pores are completely filled with resin material, the prior art
glass fiber reinforcing materials per se (as distinguished from
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007