Appeal 2006-2300
Application 10/615,746
utilizes the same materials as Appellant for fabrication of a fiber reinforced
polymeric foam composite. (Compare Findings of Fact 4, 7, 11, and 12 with
Findings of Fact 23, 24, and 25.) Thus, the burden was properly shifted to
Appellant to demonstrate that the Examiner’s proposed combination would
not result in a low binder expandable fiber mat having fibers substantially
distributed within the polymeric foam as claimed. See In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (Where patentability rests
upon a property of the claimed material not disclosed within the art, the PTO
has no reasonable method of determining whether there is, in fact, a
patentable difference between the prior art materials and the claimed
material. Therefore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical
or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior
art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed
product.) Appellant has not met this burden.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Appellant argues that Hoffmann
only discloses combinations of a meshwork web with a facing sheet (Br. 10).
Appellant has not, however, addressed the Examiner’s determination that
claims 12 and 13 are rendered obvious by Londrigan’s Figure 2 embodiment
wherein multiple reinforcement materials are positioned between facing
sheets (Answer 7 and 12). The reinforcement materials may be adjacent and
may comprise different materials including low binder fiber mats (e.g.,
expandable glass mats) and fibrous webs, the latter of which would appear to
meet the limitation of a penetrable support mat (Findings of Fact 13, 14, and
26).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013