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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007