Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177
second mold set. Cherry discloses a comparable method of making an air bag
cover, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the
cooling and hardening step taught by Kikuchi would greatly facilitate the task of
successfully transferring Cherry’s hard layer 70 from the first mold to the second
mold. Indeed, Cherry’s description of the manner in which the hard layer 70 is
formed in the first mold and then placed in the second mold (see col. 4, ll. 39-48)
arguably by itself teaches or would have suggested the cooling limitation in
question.
The crux of Appellant’s position that the subject rejection is unsound instead
focuses on a different limitation in claim 25. More particularly, Appellant
contends (Br. 4-7; Reply 2-4) that the combined teachings of Cherry and Kikuchi
would not have suggested a method meeting the limitation requiring
a molecular concentration gradient . . . formed at an
interface between the first and second plastics to bond the
first and second plastics by diffusion at the entire contact
surface of the outer layer to prevent separation of the
outer layer from the front panel during use of the air bag
cover.
The Examiner essentially relies on Cherry as being suggestive of this
feature. Although Cherry does not expressly describe a molecular concentration
gradient of the sort claimed, the failure to do so is not dispositive. In this regard, it
is well settled that in analyzing the disclosure of a reference it is proper to take into
account not only the specific teachings contained in the reference but also the
inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013