Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 9
Application No. 10/234,608
fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, Lowry teaches
an overhead door containing thermal insulation material and Gibson discloses
aerogel as a known thermal insulation material.
Therefore, in our view, the Examiner has established that the claimed
improvement of claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled
artisan within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art. For
its part, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie conclusion of
obviousness with objective evidence of non-obviousness. See In re Fielder, 471
F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973). Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is hereby affirmed.
New Grounds of Rejection
The references relied upon by the Board are:
Gray 3,653,495 April 4, 1972
Martin 5,156,895 October 20, 1992
Kim 6,467,143 October 22, 2002 (filed June 20, 2000)
The new ground of rejection is:
Claims 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin in view of Gray or Kim.
Claim 11 reads:
A web comprising a plurality of aerogel-filled vacuum
insulated panels having at least one perforation between one or
more of such panels allowing for separation of one or more
aerogel-filled vacuum insulated panels from each other.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013