Appeal No. 2006-1390
Application No. 10/291,206
The examiner states that hence Waldrop would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that
various weave structures can be used in a woven seating fabric.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9, 40, 41,
49, and 50 as being obvious over Dailey in view of Stumpf and further in view of Waldrop.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, and 38 through 51 as
being obvious over Waldrop in view of Stumpf
The examiner's position for this rejection is set forth on pages 6 through 8 of the Answer,
and we incorporate the examiner’s position as set forth therein as our own.
Beginning on page 6 of the Brief, appellants argue that there is nothing in Waldrop or
Stumpf which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Waldrop and
Stumpf patents in such a way as to arrive at the invention defined by the pending claims.
Appellants argue that Waldrop does not contain any teaching that would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the disclosed fabric in Stumpf. We are not convinced by this
argument. The examiner has explained the motivation that exists in this combination. The
examiner states on page 6 of the Answer that Waldrop fails to use a leno woven fabric as the
support fabric for seating. On page 7 of the Answer, the examiner explains that Stumpf teaches
the use of a leno weave in a fabric used for seating, and that such a weave facilitates aeration and
provides a smooth seating surface, and refers to column 19, lines 19 through 21 of Stumpf. This
is sufficient motivation.
On page 7 of the Brief, appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to heat set the seating structure membrane disclosed in Stumpf. However, as
pointed out by the examiner on page 11 of the Answer, Waldrop teaches heat setting and
therefore one does not need to provide motivation to heat set the fabric because it is already
taught by Waldrop. The examiner relies upon Stumpf for teaching use of a leno weave.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through
4, 6 through 9, and 38 through 51.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007