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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007