Appeal 2007-1486
Application 10/339,003
4. analysis
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Specifically, in this case,
has the Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to perform sufficient fact
finding to support a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner pointedly identified relevant teachings in Bafford and
Isoda relied upon to support a conclusion of obviousness (Answer, 3-4 and
6). Specifically, the "Background" section in Bafford establishes the
composition of a typical upholstery fabric used for seating, i.e., a cotton
and/or polyester scrim which is bonded to a layer of vinyl or urethane (col.
1, ll. 53-55). The scrim fabric, such as a polyester or polyester/cotton blend,
is usually a lightweight open fabric designed to provide dimensional
stability, tensile strength and tear resistance to the composite fabric (Bafford,
col. 1, ll. 58-63). Isoda's statement that a thermoplastic elastomeric net
material, preferably a thermoplastic polyester, provides superior durability,
cushioning and heat-resistance durability properties necessary for furniture,
beds, vehicle seats, etc., said never to been achieved by conventional net
structures (col. 1, ll. 6-10; col. 2, ll. 61-67; col. 3, ll. 62-64; col. 4, ll. 3-4)
represents a factual basis for using an elasteromeric net material as at least
part of a scrim fabric in a conventional upholstery fabric. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, reading Bafford and
Isoda would have been motivated to use Isoda's thermoplastic elastomeric
net material as a scrim in a conventional upholstery composite fabric as
described by Bafford because Isoda expressly describes the elastomeric net
material as having superior durability, cushioning and heat-resistance
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013