Appeal No. 2005-2723
Application No. 10/014,084
that the auxiliary material can be included in one of the bulk streams. (Col. 4,
33-41; and col. 11, ll. 15-21). Fitzgibbon discloses that the auxiliary material can
comprise components that correspond to the filler components of the claimed
invention. (Col. 7, ll. 48-57). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 over the combined teachings of
Fitzgibbon and Harrison. The Examiner relied on the Harrison reference for
disclosing the use of natural fibers as filler materials. (Office Action mailed June
2, 2004). Appellants have not disputed that Harrison teaches the features relied
upon by the Examiner. Rather, Appellants argue that Harrison does not “teach
division of at least one of the two polyurethane-forming reaction components into
at least two portions differing only with respect to filler content.” (Brief, p. 6).
However, the Examiner did not rely on the Fitzgibbon reference for teaching the
division of the bulk materials. Since Appellants have failed to challenge the
Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Harrison and Fitzgibbon, we
presume that he is in agreement with the Examiner. Thus, for the reasons
presented above regarding the rejection over Fitzgibbon and the reasons
presented by the Examiner we will uphold the § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007