Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
ANALYSIS
There are two grounds of rejection on appeal, each of which is based
on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections and
Applicant’s response thereto are discussed below.
i) The Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 over Heilmayr in view
of Lause
Applicant claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are directed to panels having an
inner layer, a center layer and an outer layer. The inner and outer layers are
formed from PVC polymer and contain 2 to 8 parts per hundred parts impact
modifier. The center layer is coextruded with the inner and outer layers by
extrusion through a multi-manifold die. The center layer may be formed
from calcium carbonate filled PVC and/or foamed PVC (e.g., claim 1) or
regrind material (claim 8). Additionally, claims 1, 3, and 5 require the PVC
used in the inner and outer layers to have a specific gravity range from 1.35
to 1.5 and the center layer has a specific gravity ranging from 0.8 to 1.6.
The center layer of claims 1, 3, and 5 has a thickness ranging from 0.15 to
0.4 inches and the panel has a thickness ranging from 0.35 to 0.06 inches.
The Examiner found that Heilmayr teaches all material limitations of
Applicant’s claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, except for the use of an impact modifier in
the outer layers. Additionally, the Examiner implicitly found that Heilmayr
teaches all material limitations of claim 8, except for the use of inexpensive
scrap material, such as regrind materials. The Examiner relied upon Lause
as teaching that impact modifiers, such as chlorinated polyethylene and
acrylic copolymers, are known in the panel and siding art to improve impact
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013