Appeal 2006-2824
Application 10/441,513
Specification, we determine that the amount of time between applications of
polymeric material by the separate nozzles as taught by Grossmann would
have also necessarily achieved the result of avoiding some degree of
sagging.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’
arguments. Therefore we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, and
21-27 under § 102(b) over Grossmann.
B. The Rejections over § 103(a)
The Examiner makes the same factual findings as discussed above
(Answer 5-6). The Examiner recognizes that claim 1 on appeal requires a
single nozzle with two outlets instead of the two separate nozzles taught by
Grossmann (Answer 6). However, the Examiner concludes that this
difference would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the
time of the invention since it merely involves integration of two separate
nozzles into one device (Answer 6). We agree that, since Grossmann
teaches that the outer layer is simultaneously applied over the first inner
layer with a second molding nozzle “located at a relatively small distance
from the first molding nozzle” (p. 5, last full paragraph), it would have been
within the ordinary skill of the art to use one nozzle for both applications,
with two outlets positioned a “small distance” apart.
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented above, reiterating
that Grossmann “teaches away” from the use of the same material in the
inner and outer layers (Br. 10). We adopt our comments from above, as well
as the Examiner’s remarks in the Answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007