Appeal No. 2006-1484
Application No. 09/828,480
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that only the
examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through 25 and 27 through 29 is
well-founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 18 through 25 and 27 through 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, but reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and
3 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasons for these
determinations follow.4
As correctly found by the examiner (the Answer, page 3 and
the Supplemental Answer, page 3), both Dinter and Stricker teach
a molded article made of a plurality of plastic and fabric
layers. Stricker, for example, teaches forming a molded panel
material having a polypropylene thermoplastic support layer (2)
between a decorative polypropylene fabric layer (3) and a
polypropylene backing fabric layer (4). See column 7, lines 20-
45 and column 8, lines 33-43. The polypropylene thermoplastic
support layer is heated to a soften state so that “it can be
thermoplastically bonded with the polypropylene fibers of the
decorative layer 3 and the backing 4.” See column 9, lines 5-10.
In another embodiment, Stricker teaches heating the support layer
4Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), we limit our
discussion to the separately argued claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007