Appeal No. 2006-1098 Application No. 09/990,115 Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Appellants point out that the purpose of De Winter’s application of polyurethane is “to apply different colored materials to a substrate aesthetically, not how to apply sound attenuating/absorbing material for acoustic purposes” (page 14 of Brief, first paragraph). Appellants submit, therefore, that modifying De Winter would likely destroy its intended purpose “since areas where sound attenuating/absorbing material may be required on a substrate may not necessarily be at locations where an aesthetically pleasing parting line can be achieved” (id.). However, we find sound reasoning in the examiner’s response that combining the teachings of De Winter and Leenslag would not destroy the purpose of De Winter “but would instead enhance it because it would allow the material of De Winter to be both visually pleasing and sound absorbing” (page 5 of Answer, second paragraph). Moreover, we have no doubt that the collective teachings of De Winter and Leenslag would have made it obvious to apply polyurethane in selected areas of an automobile for either sound attenuation or aesthetics, or both, as desired/required. -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007