Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
25) According to the Specification, “[e]xamples of non-penetrable
support mats include flexile metal sheet (e.g., aluminum foil), paper,
paperboard, plastic foils, asphalt-saturated felt, fiberglass sheet”
(Specification 5:27-29).
26) According to the Specification, “[e]xamples of penetrable support
mats include fiber scrims, netting, and even porous paper or sheet
materials” (Specification 5:31-6:2).
27) The Specification states that “[s]uitable examples of foamable
mixtures for producing polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foams are in
USP 4,572,865” (Specification 8:12-14).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to simplify Londrigan’s process by replacing individual
supply rolls of a low binder fiber mat and a support mat with a single supply
roll containing a composite thereof, identifying process simplification as
motivation for the modification. The Examiner noted that substitution of a
composite supply roll for two separate supply rolls “is an art recognized
effective alternative way for supplying a non-woven web and a covering
layer into a belt-press foaming laminator as exemplified in the teachings of
Hoffman [sic, Hoffmann]” (Answer 5). In our view, the facts and reasons
relied on by the Examiner properly establish a prima facie showing of
obviousness based on the guidelines set forth in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., wherein the Supreme Court explained that “[w]here there is a design
need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good
reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013