Appeal No. 2006-0631
Application No. 10/138,539
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Payne, like appellants, discloses a
polyurethane/geotextile composite that is useful as a liner for
canals, ditches, etc. While Payne does not particularize the
specific components of the polyurethane composition that is used
in making the geotextile composite, appellants do not contest the
examiner's factual finding that Adam discloses a similar blanket
liner for use in a ditch having a polyurethane composition that
falls within the scope of the appealed claims (the examiner notes
that appealed claim 1 does not require any of components (C),
(D), (E) and (F)). Accordingly, based upon these uncontested
disclosures of the applied prior art, we fully concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to select the particular polyurethane
composition of Adam for the polyurethane of Payne in making a
polyurethane/geotextile composite. The examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is further supported by Payne's disclosure that the
polyurethane used was developed closely with Bayer Corporation,
the present assignee.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007