Appeal No. 2006-1666
Application No. 10/211,683
facing lighter, which is a desire of Porter” (page 7 of answer,
second paragraph). As for appellants’ argument that the scrim
material of Porter must have sufficient strength for wind
resistance, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to select the material for the
scrim, be it foamed or otherwise, to fit the particular use of
the insulation material, while balancing the properties of
strength, thermal insulation, and weight. Also, we note that
appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
One final point remains. Upon return of this application
to the examiner, the examiner should consider the obviousness of
the subject matter defined by claims 1, 7, 8 and 39 over the
combined teachings of Porter and Li, bearing in mind that the
diameter of a foamed filament may be a matter of optimization
for one of ordinary skill in the art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7, 8 and 39 under § 103 is reversed, and
the examiner’s § 103 rejecting of claims 17 and 18 is affirmed.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed
claims is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007