Appeal No. 2007-0886
Application 09/914,181
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Hom US 4,291,079 Sep. 22, 1981
Whitemore US 4,292,356 Sep. 29, 1981
Daunt US 4,377,736 Mar. 22, 1983
Newsam US 4,504,346 Mar. 12, 1985
Beggs US 4,539,244 Sep. 3, 1985
Adee US 4,612,737 Sep. 23, 1986
Porte (EP ‘174)1 EP 0,897,174 A1 Feb. 17, 1999
Weizenecker (EP ‘803) EP 0,911,803 A2 Apr. 28, 1999
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over EP ‘174 in view of EP ‘803 and Newsam, and optionally further taken
with any one of Hom, Whitemore, or Beggs.
2. Claims 10, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Adee in view of Daunt, EP ‘803, and EP ‘174, and optionally further
taken with any one of Hom, Whitemore, or Beggs.
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that it would have been prima facie obvious
to reverse the order of process steps in EP ‘174 in view of the advantages
disclosed in EP ‘803 to achieve Appellants’ claimed process steps of placing
a structural layer on a mold followed by placement of an acoustical layer.
This reasoning is used in support of both rejections. Appellants contend that
the Examiner has failed to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to change the order of process steps in EP ‘174.
This is Appellants’ sole contention. The issue for us to decide is: Has the
1 All references to EP ‘174 are to the English language equivalent,1
US Patent 6,268,038.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013