Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 22
Application No. 10/068,243
this deficiency of Thompson, the examiner turns to Rowles for a
teaching of these features.
Appellant’s position (brief, pages 8-11) is to repeat
arguments relating to Thompson, and assert that the polymers
specified in claims 2 and 3 are not found in Rowles or Thompson.
It is further asserted that Rowles and Thompson do not disclose
the claimed physical properties.
At the outset, we make reference to our findings, supra,
with respect to claim construction, and the teachings, express
and inherent, in Thompson. Appellant does not dispute the
teachings of Thompson or the combinability of the references, but
rather implies that the combined teachings would not have
resulted in the invention of claims 1-6, 8 and 9. We make
reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the Declaration
by the co-inventors. The Declaration is unpersuasive for the
reasons, supra, and because the Declaration does not address the
Thompson reference. From the disclosure of Rowles, we agree with
the examiner that an artisan would have been motivated to use the
cargo roller support system of Rowles with the cargo roller of
Thompson for the reasons advanced by the examiner in the answer,
(pages 4-6). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007