Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product ... of ordinary skill
and common sense.” 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive in overcoming the
Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness, because they fail to address
the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the claims.
Appellant’s arguments focus on his contention that Hoffmann does
not utilize a low binder, or any other type of expandable, fiber mat (Br. 7).
Thus, Appellant first argues that Hoffmann does not suggest the combination
of “a low binder fiber mat and a support mat as a composite web in a single
feeding roll (Br. 5). However, it is abundantly clear from the Answer that
the Examiner is not relying on Hoffmann for the disclosure of a composite
of a low binder fiber mat and support mat (Answer 9). Rather, the Examiner
is relying on Hoffmann to show that, in the manufacture of fiber reinforced
polymeric foam composites, use of a single supply roll of a composite is a
known alternative to multiple supply rolls of the individual materials
forming the composite (Answer 9).
Appellant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have looked to Hoffmann for improvements to Londrigan’s process because
Hoffmann is not concerned with the problems associated with feeding a low
binder fiber mat into a foaming process (Br. 7). This argument likewise fails
to address the Examiner’s reliance on Hoffmann for a general disclosure of
using a single supply roll of a composite in a fabrication process similar to
Londrigan’s (Answer 9). While the analysis in support of an obviousness
determination should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements,” in the manner claimed,
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389, the “analysis [of whether the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013