Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
USPQ at 966. Having failed to identify sufficient evidence on this point, we
find that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that its multi-manifold
coextrusion process results in an unobvious product as compared to the prior
art feedblock or flowblock coextrusion process.
Applicant contends that the teachings of Heilmayr cannot be
combined in the manner suggested with Lause. (Br 18). Applicant states
that Lause is directed to a laminated product that would not work for
Applicant’s purposes and that the Examiner should not be allowed to pick
and chose ingredients from Lause while ignoring Lause’s lamination
process. (Br 18-19). Obviousness is based upon what the combined
teachings of the prior art suggest to the person of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Heilmayr teaches that its triwall siding are uniform, strong, low-cost
and low-weight. The Examiner cites Lause as informing one of ordinary
skill in the art that impact modifiers are known in the panel art and also for
its teaching of the amounts typically used to impart impact resistance to
paneling. One of ordinary skill in the art desiring strong, impact resistant
triwall siding would have reason to modify the teachings of Heilmayr and
include an impact modifier to impart improved impact resistance to
Heilmayr’s siding.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013