Appeal 2007-1004
Application 09/842,248
34, l. 14 and Example 13) . Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the clear direction in Spain to look to available prior art
polyolefin-containing resinous materials, such as the resinous material of
Saeki, for use in forming the backing sheet and substrate layers of Spain.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, both Spain and Saeki are concerned with
forming body parts for an automobile, such as a bumper. Further concerning
this matter, we note that the substitution of one known bumper forming
material for another would represent an obvious alternative that would be
expected to be attended by a reasonable expectation of success by one of
ordinary skill in the art.
We are mindful that Saeki discloses use of a filler as part of the resin
composition disclosed therein. In this regard, Appellants essentially
maintain that Spain would have taught away from one of ordinary skill in the
art using a filler in the backing sheet (Reply Br. 2-3 and Br. 8-10 and 14).
This argument is based on the disclosure in Spain that the substrate may
include a substantial amount of filler and have an imperfect surface upon
molding wheareas Spain indicates the backing sheet acts as a buffer to
isolate imperfections in the substrate from the surface coat (col. 17, ll. 2-36).
This argument is not persuasive for several reasons. First, representative
claim 1 requires as little as 1 weight percent filler and Appellants have not
established such small amounts represent the substantial amount of filler that
Spain notes as potentially resulting in surface imperfections on molding a
substrate. Second, Appellants’ position that Spain teaches substantial
amounts of filler can be incorporated into the substrate, but not in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013