Appeal No. 2006-1098
Application No. 09/990,115
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
De Winter, like appellants, discloses a method of applying
polyurethane on a substrate, e.g., the interior trim of an
automobile, only in identified areas of the substrate. As
recognized by the examiner, De Winter does not disclose that the
method of applying polyurethane on the interior of an automobile
is for the purpose of attenuating sound. However, appellants do
not dispute the examiner’s factual determination that Leenslag
discloses the application of polyurethane for providing sound
insulation for automobiles. To wit, Leenslag discloses that
“[t]he foams of the present invention may be used . . . as foams
for sound insulation in automotive applications” (column 8,
lines 35-39). Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of
De Winter and Leenslag, we fully concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
apply polyurethane to the interior of an automobile for the
purpose of effecting sound insulation. While Leenslag does not
expressly teach the claimed steps of ascertaining the acoustic
properties of an article and applying polyurethane only in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007