Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
the art would not combine the disclosures of Heilmayr and Lause, and arrive
at the claimed invention as Lause “differs in almost every pertinent respect
from Appellant’s claimed invention.” (Br 19).
The Examiner found that Heilmayr describes three-layer extrusions of
flat siding (“triwall siding”) that were preferably formed from PVC.
(Answer 3). The Examiner further found that Heilmayr describes a center
layer having a thickness within Applicant’s claimed range and an upper and
lower layer thickness that overlaps that of Applicant. (Id.). The Examiner
also found that while Heilmayr lacks a teaching of Applicant’s specific
impact modified PVC, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
Lause teaches that the addition of impact modifiers to PVC would improve
the impact strength of the panels. (Id. at 3-4).
As to Applicant’s claimed parameters, the Examiner found that the
general conditions were known and the specific parameters are the result of
routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art motivated to obtain
impact resistant siding. (Id.). As to the alleged benefits achieved by a multi-
manifold extrusion process, the Examiner states that Applicant has failed to
provide sufficient evidence that this process affects the chemistry or
structure of the resulting triwall product.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Applicant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims. Specifically, the issues are:
Has Applicant demonstrated that the Examiner was incorrect in
finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013