Appeal No. 2005-2633 Page 6
Application No. 10/254,376
The Examiner relied on the Daniel reference for teaching that it was conventional
to use thermoplastic resins in molding processes. As we indicated above, Barber’s
impact pads do not each have a plurality of spaced-apart, energy-absorbing
thermoplastic structures that are integrally molded and extend upwardly from an upper
surface of the molded sheet as required by claim 17. As such, the combination of
Barber and Daniel does not render obvious the subject matter of claim 17 within the
meaning of '103.
Claims 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '103(a) as obvious over Keller
in view of Klobucar and in further view of Wandyez.2 We reverse.
The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness to
support the rejections for two reasons. First, the cited reference fails to teach or
suggest every element of the claimed invention. Second, the Examiner has not
identified a teaching or suggestion within the cited reference or within the general
knowledge of those skilled in the art that would have led one skilled to the claimed
invention.
According to the Examiner, Keller teaches molding large articles such as an
automobile body part by gas-assisted injection molding process. However, Keller does
2 We will limit our discussion to claim 19. Claim 23 depends on claim 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007