Appeal 2006-2211
Application 10/266,215
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Friesner, like Appellant, discloses an apparatus and method for producing a
sheet of thermoplastic material having variable thickness by extruding
molten thermoplastic between two rollers, one of which has a surface
contour that produces areas of different thickness on the thermoplastic sheet.
The rollers of Friesner have been cut or engraved for effecting the variation
in thickness of the thermoplastic sheet.
As acknowledged by the Examiner, the rollers of Friesner do not
include a strip material thereon for creating a variation in thickness, as
presently claimed. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that
McAmish evidences the obviousness of employing the presently claimed
strip material on the rollers as an alternative to the engraved rollers of
Friesner for forming a thermoplastic sheet having areas of reduced thickness.
Indeed, McAmish expressly discloses that, in impressing selected areas of a
thermoplastic sheet for bonding to a fabric, the rollers may include raised
areas provided by wrapping tape, such as Teflon, around the circumference
of the roller, or by engraving raised areas on the roller (see col. 5, ll. 31, et
seq.). We note that Figure 4 of McAmish depicts lanes or narrow portions
of the thermoplastic that are of reduced thickness in high-bond regions.
Hence, based on the combined teachings of Friesner and McAmish, we have
no doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
utilize Appellant's strip material on the rollers of Friesner as a variable
alternative to engraving the rollers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013