Appeal No. 2006-1484
Application No. 09/828,480
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
18 through 25 and 27 through 29 under § 103.
With respect to claims 1 and 3 through 17, they, unlike
claims 18 through 25 and 27 through 29, require the claimed
fabric and plastic layers be partially melted during molding to
form a desired article. See claim 1. However, as indicated by
the examiner at page 3 of the Answer, Dinter “does not teach that
the fibers of the reinforcing fabric should partially melt during
molding.” Moreover, Striker teaches heating only plastic layer
or only plastic and decorative layers prior to molding to place
the plastic layer in a soften state (non-melted state) for
thermal bonding as indicated supra. Thus, even if Dinter and
Stricker can be combined, they would not have suggested partially
melting the fibers of the fabric layers during molding to form a
desired article within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, we determine that the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness regarding the subject matter
defined by claims 1 and 3 through 17 within the meaning of § 103.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1 and 3 through 17 under § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007