Appeal 2007-1482
Application 10/484,149
layer of Otawa for the purpose of improving its mechanical properties with
the reasonable expectation that a viable outer layer would result having
improved impact resistance, etc. The obviousness of doing so is
underscored by the acknowledgement in Appellants' Specification that the
use of polycarbonates as an outer layer for layered composite materials was
well known in the art.
Appellants maintain that "a person of ordinary skill in the art who
adopted the Examiner's rationale could not reasonably expect to arrive at a
useful composite when the material of the surface skin of Otawa et al.'s
layered composite was replaced by the molding material addressed in the
disclosure of Taubitz et al." (Principal Br. 6, last para., emphasis added).
As noted by the Examiner, however, Appellants' argument misses the thrust
of the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner does not propose replacing the
polyester outer layer of Otawa with the composition of Taubitz but, rather,
adding polycarbonate to the polyester outer layer of Otawa to achieve the
known benefits of the mixture.
Appellants respond in their Reply Brief that an outer layer comprising
a mixture of polyester and polycarbonate "is outside the scope of the claim
[and that] [w]hat is claimed is: a layered composite material, wherein the
thermoplastic in the outer layer is selected from the group consisting of
polycarbonates, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers, and mixtures of
the above-mentioned materials" (Reply Br. 5, last para.). However, as
alluded to by the Examiner, Appellants' claim language "an outer layer …
composed of thermoplastic" is "open" to the outer layer comprising the
recited thermoplastics as well as other materials, such as, polyesters. Indeed,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013