Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as obvious over the
prior art. Specifically, the Examiner has set forth the following two prior art
rejections:
i) Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heilmayr, U.S. Patent
4,911,628 (“Heilmayr”)2 in view of Lause, U.S. Patent
4,633,063 (“Lause”).
ii) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heilmayr in view of Lause or further
in view of Parker, U.S. Patent 4,350,798 (“Parker”) or
Greenlee, U.S. Patent 5,248,546 (“Greenlee”).
Applicant generally contends that a key aspect of its invention is the
recognition that a three layer product of specific makeup and composition,
as opposed to the prior art two layer compositions, could achieve
performance and economic benefits over the prior art. (Br 14). In
particular, Applicant contends that its invention includes specific
parameters, such as thickness, percent range of impact modifiers, specific
gravity, and ability to meet ASTM standards. Applicant also contends that
its invention is unobvious as the prior art relied upon earlier manufacturing
techniques of “flow block” or “feed block” coextrusion as opposed to the
claimed “multi-manifold coextrusion.” (Br 15). Indeed, Applicant contends
that its “claimed invention is only possible due to the recent advances in
tooling for the extrusion of PVC sheets with enhanced control of layer
distribution.” (Br 14). Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in
2 Heilmayr, U.S. Patent 4,911,628 is Applicant’s own prior art work. (Br
10).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013