Appeal No. 2006-1098
Application No. 09/990,115
identified areas of the article where enhanced sound attenuation
is required, we agree with the examiner that “[s]ince Leenslag
teaches employing the polyurethane foam as sound insulation, it
implicitly teaches the step of first ascertaining the acoustic
properties of an articles [sic, article] to identify areas where
sound attenuation is necessary” (page 3 of Answer, first
paragraph, last sentence). Indeed, insofar as Leenslag
evidences that it was known in the art to employ polyurethane as
sound insulation in automobiles, we are convinced that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
ascertain the specific locations in the automobile which require
insulation from sound.
While appellants emphasize that neither of the applied
references discloses the claimed step of ascertaining the areas
needing insulation, it is not necessary for a finding of
obviousness under § 103 that the prior art references
specifically disclose a claimed feature. B.F. Goodrich Co. v.
Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d,
1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It is well settled that the test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007