Appeal No. 2006-0631
Application No. 10/138,539
We totally reject appellants' argument that Payne "is so
utterly and totally devoid of any concrete teaching, suggestion
or guidance that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
the instantly claimed invention as to be unsuitable as a base
reference for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)" (page 8 of
Brief, second paragraph). Inasmuch as Payne expressly teaches
the use of a polyurethane composition in combination with a
geotextile in the formation of a composite used as a liner in
ditches and the like, we are confident that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to look to suitable
polyurethanes that have similar utility, such as, the
polyurethane of Adam. We note that appellants do not argue that
polyurethane compositions within the scope of the appealed claims
are somehow different than the polyurethane compositions fairly
taught by Adam. Also, appellants have not presented any line of
reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it nonobvious to use the polyurethane compositions of Adam in
making the composite of Payne. Nor have appellants addressed the
reference in Payne discussed by the examiner regarding the
association between Payne and the present assignee.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007