Appeal 2007-0404 Application 10/684,611 Appellant contends that Park uses carbon dioxide for controlling the density of the foam, creating bubbles, with this blowing agent diffusing through the cells walls, and thus the foam cells do not contain carbon dioxide as claimed (Br. 5). Appellant contends that Hayes discloses injecting an inert gas such as carbon dioxide into the melt for the desired foaming action in the melt, but fails to disclose a layer of plastic where the foam cells contain carbon dioxide as claimed (Br. 6). With regard to all of the rejections based on § 103(a), Appellant contends that there is no motivation to combine these references, and even if combinable, the references do not require the foam cells to contain carbon dioxide as claimed (Br. 6-8). The Examiner contends that it was known in the art that, when using carbon dioxide as a blowing agent, some of the carbon dioxide will remain in the cells of the foam (Answer 7-8). The Examiner also contends that even if the foam sheet is aged for a period of time to allow diffusion of the blowing agent and air through the cell walls, the foam cells would contain air which comprises small amounts of carbon dioxide (Answer 8). The Examiner further contends that adequate motivation has been established for each rejection based on § 103(a) (Answer 8-9). Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) do the foam cells of Park or Hayes contain carbon dioxide as required by the claims on appeal? and (2) has the Examiner established an adequate motivation or 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013