Appeal 2007-1486
Application 10/339,003
durability. In other words, we find that the Examiner has established a
legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of the prior art.
Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner was
incorrect in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
able to follow the teachings of the prior art and employ elastomeric
polyester, which is known for use in fabrics, in polyester upholstery fabrics
(Answer, 7). First, Appellant's characterization of Bafford is unduly limited.
For example, Bafford discloses that the vinyl layer can be extrusion coated
onto the scrim or can be cast as a separate film and then bonded to the scrim
by stitch bonding, adhesive bonding or heat bonding (col. 1, ll. 58-63).
Appellant has not explained why one skilled in the art would have been
unable to use a known technique for forming a fabric composite, e.g.,
casting a vinyl layer as a separate film then bonding it to a scrim material by
adhesive bonding, as described by Bafford, to arrive at the claimed
invention. Additionally, Bafford does not expressly state whether
elastomeric or non-elastomeric materials are used to provide dimensional
stability in an upholstery fabric composite. Thus, the question here is not
whether elastomeric and non-elastomeric polyester materials provide
identical dimensional stability in an upholstery fabric composite, but rather
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. Both Bafford and Isoda broadly disclose
use of polyester-based materials in making such composites (Bafford at col.
1, ll. 58-63; Isoda at col. 4, ll. 3-4) and the elastomeric material of Isoda is
said to provide markedly superior durability and cushioning properties
(Isoda at col. 1, ll. 6-10; col. 2, ll. 61-67).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013