Ex Parte Semersky - Page 3

                 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                                 



                                                           3                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013