Appeal No. 2006-2539 Page 9
Application No. 10/421,661
be formed by conventional techniques such as . . . by extrusion of one component into
contact with a preformed sheet of the other component.” Id., page 5.
The examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to have modified
a method of Andre by first p[re]forming a [rigid polymer structural] layer 10 and then
coextruding layers 12 and 14 . . . since Chi teaches that a laminate can be formed either
by co-extrusion or by extrusion of one component into contact with a preformed sheet of
the other component.” Id.
Appellants argue that the references do not support a prima facie case because,
among other things, they do not teach all the limitations of the claimed method: “[T]hat
a topcoat layer C is applied to layer B while B is still molten, is nowhere disclosed or
suggested in Andre or Chi.” Appeal Brief, page 11.
We agree with Appellants that, even if the methods disclosed by Andre and Chi
were combined, they would not result in the process defined by instant claim 1. As the
examiner noted, the two layers of the pipe disclosed by Andre are held together by a
“film of a polyolefin or polyurethane type adhesive.” Andre, column 2, lines 2-3. The
examiner has pointed to nothing in the cited references that teaches a method of
applying a molten or plastic polyurethane to a rigid polymer structure (e.g., layer 10 in
Andre) and then applying an elastomer layer while the polyurethane is still in a molten
or plastic state. Thus, even they were combined, the references would not teach a
method meeting all the limitations of instant claim 1, and the examiner has not
adequately explained why they would have suggested the limitations that are not
expressly taught. We therefore reverse the § 103 rejection based on Andre and Chi.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007