Ex Parte Gregorio

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 7, 2008

10811604 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 7, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte PIERATTILIO DI GREGORIO
__________

Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604
Technology Center 1700
___________

Decided: November 7, 2008
___________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 12, and 13, all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Benson,1 Hunter,2
Späth,3 and the Appellant’s admission.4 Final 2-5.5
The Examiner finally rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the
Appellant’s admission, and Nishimoto.6 Final 5-6.
The Examiner finally rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the
Appellant’s admission, and Haase.7 Final 6-7.
B. ISSUES
Whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, and the
Appellant’s admission.
Whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in rejecting claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the Appellant’s admission, and
Nishimoto.
Whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the

1 US 5,107,649 issued to Benson et al. on April 28, 1992 (“Benson”).
2 US 5,792,539 issued to Hunter on August 11, 1998 (“Hunter”).
3 US 6,189,354 B1 issued to Späth on February 20, 2001 (“Späth”).
4 Page 1, lines 17-26 of the Appellant’s Specification (“Appellant’s
admission”).
5 Final Office Action mailed February 13, 2007.
6 US 6,336,693 B2 issued to Nishimoto on January 8, 2002 (“Nishimoto”).
7 US 4,011,357 issued to Haase on March 8, 1977 (“Haase”).
2
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the Appellant’s admission, and
Haase.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Additional findings of fact as necessary appear in the Analysis
portion of the opinion.
1. Appellant’s Specification
The Appellant discloses that a vacuum panel is known to be formed of
an envelope that contains a filling material. Spec. 1:15-16.
The envelope is made with so-called “barrier” sheets having a
thickness generally not greater than 100 µm. Spec. 1:19-21.
The filling material has the function of spacing apart the two opposite
faces of the envelope when a vacuum is created in the panel. Spec. 1:27-28.
The filling material can be inorganic, such as silica powder, glass
fibers, aerogels, and diatomaceous earth, or organic, such as rigid foams of
polyurethane or polystyrene, both in the form of boards and powders.
Materials more commonly used are open cell polyurethane foams, and in the
case of panels which must resist temperatures higher than about 150ºC,
silica powder. Spec. 1:28-2:3.
The Appellant’s invention relates to a method for producing thermo-
insulating cylindrical vacuum panels comprising the steps of: manufacturing
a planar vacuum panel according to any known procedure and curving the
panel through calendering. Spec. 3:21-26.

3
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

The Appellant discloses that panels subjected to calendering can be of
any known type, obtained through any combination of envelope and filling
material. Spec. 4:15-17.
According to the Appellant, the operation of calendering is well
known and is applied in the mechanical field for curving metallic plates.
Spec. 3:27-29.
2. Claimed subject matter
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
A method for producing cylindrical vacuum panels
comprising the steps of:
producing a planar, thermo-insulating vacuum panel
having two facing sheets each comprising a barrier sheet having
a thickness not greater than 100µm, the two facing sheets sealed
at their edges to form an envelope, at least one porous or
discontinuous filling material selected from the group
consisting of inorganic powders and porous organic foams
filling the envelope formed by the facing sheets, and a vacuum
created in the panel, wherein pores and interstices in the filling
materials are evacuated and the filling material functions to
space the facing sheets apart; and
curving the panel by a calendering operation.

App. Br. 19,8 Claims Appendix.
3. Benson
Benson discloses vacuum insulation panels that are thin and bendable
to form curved insulation panels. Benson 1:19-24.
Benson discloses that it is known in the art to use glass fiber mats and
perlite powders as filling materials in vacuum insulation panels. Benson
3:11-15.

8 Appeal Brief dated September 14, 2007.
4
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

However, according to Benson, bending these prior art panels may
result in certain disadvantages. Benson 2:66-3:10, 3:22-29.
Benson discloses an ultra-thin, vacuum insulation panel comprising
two outer sheets that are sealed at their edges, preferably by welding, to form
an envelope. Benson 6:27-36.
The envelope may be filled with discrete glass spacers in the form of
spherical beads. Benson 6:44-48.
The outer sheets of the panel may be formed of a low thermal
conductivity metal, such as stainless steel or titanium, and are sufficiently
hard or rigid so they do not form around the spherical spacers, but are
bendable enough so the panel can be formed in curves. Benson 6:48-54.
This embodiment of the invention is illustrated in Benson Figure 1.
Benson 4:61-64. Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Benson Figure 1 illustrates a portion of
an insulation panel.

5
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

Benson discloses that the insulation panel may also be bent into a
cylinder or other enclosing configuration. Benson 9:22-26; Benson Figure
18.
Benson Figure 15 illustrates another embodiment of the invention.
Benson 5:43-46. Figure 15 is reproduced below:

Benson Figure 15 illustrates a portion of
an insulation panel.

In this embodiment of the invention, a number of smaller vacuum
insulation panels as described above may be stacked or laminated together in
a composite panel by embedding them in, or adhering them to, a more
conventional insulation material, such as either rigid or flexible foam
insulation or a consolidated powder insulation material. Benson 8:53-58.
Benson discloses that this insulation panel can be easily formed
around curves or used in any desired shape. Benson 8:66-68.
4. Hunter
Hunter discloses a multi-layer thermal insulation barrier that supports
the outer skin of a vacuum panel. Hunter 1:5-8.
Hunter Figure 8 illustrates one embodiment of the thermal insulation
barrier. Hunter 3:41-44. Figure 8 is reproduced below:
6
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

Hunter Figure 8 illustrates a portion of
a thermal insulation barrier.

The thermal insulation barrier 10 has a beam-like design that is
capable of bending. The thermal insulation barrier 10 may be used to
insulate a curved surface 25 such as a tank or a pipe. Hunter 8:64-67.
Hunter Figure 10 illustrates a second embodiment of the thermal
insulation barrier 10. Hunter 9:16-17. Figure 10 is reproduced below:

Hunter Figure 10 illustrates a portion of a thermal insulation barrier.
7
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

The thermal insulation elements 18 and 19 are made of a solid,
formable, open structured material, such that entrapped gases may be
evacuated. Exemplary materials include open celled polyurethane, open
celled ceramic foams, xerogels, glass/ceramic fiber composites, compacted
powders such as silica with appropriate binders, and formed stainless steel
wire mesh. Hunter 9:21-29.
5. Späth
Späth discloses a bending machine that is suited for bending closed
hollow metal sections. Späth 1:53-56.
Späth discloses that the bending machine is constructed to allow
adjustment. In this way, sections with large radii and large cross-sections as
well as sections with smaller radii and smaller cross-sections can be bent as
required. Späth 6:28-35.
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 13 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any
relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.
Ct. at 1734; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
A person of ordinary skill is not an automaton but is a person of
ordinary creativity. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. One of ordinary skill in the art
8
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly
disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the references
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made. All disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. In re Lamberti,
545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
Where a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
E. ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 13
The Examiner found that Benson does not expressly disclose that
powders and foams may be used as fillers inside the bendable vacuum
envelope. Nonetheless, the Examiner found that Hunter teaches a bendable
vacuum panel that contains at least one filler selected from the group
consisting of inorganic powders and porous organic foams. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use a powder or foam as taught by Hunter inside the vacuum envelope
disclosed in Benson to increase the R-value of the panel. Ans. 3-49; Hunter
6:40-43.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings. Rather, the Appellant argues that Benson “teaches away” from
powder and foam fillers because these materials negatively affect the quality

9 Examiner’s Answer mailed January 18, 2008.
9
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

of the vacuum seal of an insulation panel. App. Br. 8. In particular, the
Appellant argues:
Benson explains that metal envelopes with welded seams will
hold a vacuum, but that leak-free welds are difficult to achieve
in the presence of conventional spacers . . ., such as glass fiber
mats and perlite powders, because such fillers contain “billions
of microscopically fine glass fibers and perlite particles,” and a
single particle or fiber intruding into a weld could create a
microscopic leak (col. 3, line 62 – col. 3, line 6).

App. Br. 9.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
passage in Benson relied on by the Appellant relates to glass fiber mats and
perlite powders, not open celled polyurethane as disclosed in Hunter. See
Benson 2:66-3:20. The Examiner explains that the polyurethane foam
disclosed in Hunter would not have been expected to affect the weld
between the two metal sheets in Benson because “the material is a foam and
not a powder or fiber at the time of sealing” and “there is now [sic, no]
powder or fiber to interrupt the seal.” Ans. 9.
The Appellant relies on a Declaration of Paolo Manini10 to establish
that “porous organic foams likewise have the tendency to generate powders,
and hence would be excluded by the teachings of Benson for at least that
reason.” Manini Declaration, para. 11; App. Br. 10, n.1.
To the extent that the polyurethane foams disclosed in Hunter may
have a tendency to generate powders that may intrude into a weld, any
microscopic leak would not render the vacuum panel inoperable for its
intended purpose. Contra In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered

10 Declaration of Paolo Manini dated March 8, 2006 (“Manini Declaration”).
10
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

inoperable for its intended purpose; in effect, French teaches away from the
proposed modification). Indeed, Hunter discloses that the polyurethane
foam is suitable for vacuum insulation panels. See Hunter 9:21-29; see also
Ans. 9 (“even if long-term seal integrity were compromised, a vacuum panel
would be sufficient for use even if only usable for several years before seal
degradation”). Furthermore, we note that the Appellant has failed to
demonstrate that the alleged disadvantages of the Hunter polyurethane foam
have been solved by the polyurethane foam employed by the Appellant. See
Appellant’s claim 4 (“the planar vacuum panel comprises, as filling material,
a rigid polyurethane foam”).
The Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s motivation to combine
Benson and Hunter is misguided. According to the Appellant:
[T]he Examiner’s position that one would be motivated to
combine Benson and Hunter to increase R value, because
Hunter teaches that stabilizing air gas pockets increases R-
value, is misguided. . . . In actual practice, whatever thermal
resistance is gained by trapping air pockets in an imperfect
vacuum by using filler is at best canceled out and at worst
diminished as a result of the increased number of direct heat
conduction paths formed by the structure proposed by the
Examiner.

App. Br. 10. The Appellant relies on column 3, lines 15-20 of Benson and
paragraph 15 of the Manini Declaration for support.
The portion of Benson relied on by the Appellant does not discuss
polyurethane foams, but rather discusses the direct heat conduction paths of
tightly compacted glass fiber mats and perlite powders. Benson 3:15-20. As
for the Manini Declaration, Mr. Manini indicates that “the conductive
contribution would increase in Benson by adding a filler according to
Hunter, due to the thermal conduction of the solid filler material.” Manini
11
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

Declaration, para. 15. However, this same “conductive contribution” also
appears to be present in the vacuum panels produced by the Appellant’s
claimed method:
[P]anels prepared at SAES according to this invention typically
contain as filler either polyurethane or silica powder. With
polyurethane, an R-value of 24 is typically obtained at a
vacuum inside the panel of 0.1 mbar, while with silica typical
values are R ≈ 32 at a vacuum degree of 10 mbar.

Id.
Thus, to the extent that the polyurethane foam disclosed in Hunter
may increase the direct heat conduction path in the panel of Benson, the
Examiner’s error is harmless. The record establishes that various materials,
such as polyurethane foam, perlite powder, glass beads, and glass fiber mats,
were known to be used as filling materials in vacuum insulation panels. We
find that it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to choose
a particular filling material, such as the polyurethane foam disclosed in
Hunter, based on the end use requirements of the vacuum insulation panel.
See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to
substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such
substitution obvious.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969)
(conclusion of obviousness may be based on the common knowledge and
common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific
hint or suggestion in a particular reference).
Next, the Examiner found that the sheets forming the envelope in the
vacuum panel of Benson do not have a thickness within the claimed range,
i.e., a thickness not greater than 100 µm. Nonetheless, the Examiner found
that the Appellant admitted in the Specification that barrier sheets having a
12
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

thickness generally not greater than 100 µm are known in the art. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to decrease the thickness of the sheets in Benson to reduce the
volume of the vacuum panel. Ans. 4-5.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings. Rather, the Appellant argues that Benson expressly discloses that
the ideal operating thickness of the barrier sheets is at least 200 µm. The
Appellant argues that substituting a sheet that is 100 µm thick for a sheet
that is 200 µm thick would “achieve nothing more than an insignificant
return on space reduction.” The Appellant also argues that Benson discloses
that the sheets “must be sufficiently hard or rigid so they do not form around
the spherical spacers.” Thus, the Appellant contends that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have risked the structural integrity of the panel for a
negligible space reduction. App. Br. 10-11; Manini Declaration, para. 20.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
First, as pointed out by the Examiner, the thicknesses disclosed in Benson
are merely illustrative. See Ans. 9 (Benson teaches that the minimum
thickness is optional, i.e., “for purposes of illustration”); Benson 11:49-55.
Second, the Appellant’s argument is based solely on the teachings of
Benson. The rejection before us is based on a combination of references
wherein the polyurethane foam of Hunter is substituted for the glass beads of
Benson. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Significantly, the evidence of record
appears to establish that such a panel would not display structural problems.
See Manini Declaration, para. 20 (“Such pressure stress is not a problem
with the presently claimed invention, since the filling material fully supports
and spaces the sheets of the panel after creation of the vacuum.”).
13
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

Thus, absent a showing of unexpected results, we find that reducing
the thickness of the barrier sheets in Benson would have been within the
skill of the ordinary artisan, especially where, as here, thinner barrier sheets
were known in the art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Finally, the Examiner found that Benson does not disclose the method
by which the vacuum panel is curved. The Examiner found that Späth
discloses a method for curving hollow metal sheets using a calendering
operation. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to curve the vacuum panel disclosed in Benson
using the calendering operation disclosed in Späth. Ans. 4.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings. Rather, the Appellant argues that the apparatus disclosed in Späth
exerts a large force during the bending operation, and there would have been
no reason to use equipment designed for applying a large force on the thin
panel disclosed in Benson having fragile glass beads as spacers. App. Br.
12.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As
pointed out above, the rejection before us is based on a combination of
references wherein the polyurethane foam of Hunter is substituted for the
spacers or glass beads of Benson. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
The Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s motivation statement
misconstrues the teachings of Späth. App. Br. 13. In particular, relying on
column 1, lines 15-18 of Späth, the Examiner states that the motivation to
curve the panels of Benson using the method taught by Späth is to produce a
curved hollow metal sheet that is protected against bulges, nicks, or any
14
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

other kind of deformation. Final 3. The Appellant argues that the passage
relied on by the Examiner indicates that the guided rollers, not the entire
bending operation disclosed in Späth, are intended to prevent bulges and
nicks in the section to be bent. App. Br. 13.
It is irrelevant whether the guided rollers or the entire bending
operation disclosed in Späth protect against deformation. The record
establishes that curved metal insulation panels were known in the art. See,
e.g., Benson Figures 1, 18; Hunter Figure 8. Späth discloses that a
calendering operation is suitable for bending metal sections. Späth 1:53-56.
Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
a calendering operation, such as the calendering operation disclosed in
Späth, is useful for curving the metal insulation panel disclosed in Benson.
To the extent that the apparatus disclosed in Späth does exert a large
force during the bending operation, the Examiner found that it would have
been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to employ smaller rollers or
smaller forces for smaller or more easily bendable objects. Ans. 10. The
Appellant has failed to direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
The Appellant also argues that Hunter does not disclose that the panel
illustrated in Figure 10 is bendable or flexible. Moreover, the Appellant
relies on paragraph 22 of the Manini Declaration to establish that the
polyurethane foam used as the filler material in Hunter is in fact rigid. App.
Br. 14.
To the extent that the polyurethane foam employed by Hunter is rigid,
Hunter does not expressly disclose that the panel cannot be curved to some
degree. Indeed, the teachings of Späth establish that rigid materials may be
curved using the disclosed calendering operation. Furthermore, we find that
15
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust the
flexibility of the foam to facilitate bending. See Benson 8:53-58 (disclosing
that conventional insulation materials include rigid and flexible foams).
The Appellant argues that if the polyurethane foam were flexible, the
walls 20 and 30 would compress the polyurethane foam (elements 18 and
19) against element 14 under the action of external pressure, and the vacuum
spaces between the stacked elements would be lost. App. Br. 14.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner merely relied on Hunter to show that polyurethane foam is a
conventional insulation material and was known to be used in vacuum
insulation panels. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
In sum, the Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, and the
Appellant’s admission.
2. Claims 5 and 6
The Examiner found that the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth,
and the Appellant’s admission does not teach a vacuum panel having a
thickness between 5 and 20 mm. The Examiner found that Nishimoto
discloses that it is known to construct vacuum panels using polyurethane
foam having a thickness in a range of 10 to 20 mm (Nishimoto 3:47-58).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to increase the thickness of the panel taught by the combined
teachings of Benson, Hunter, Späth, and the Appellant’s admission in view
of the teachings of Nishimoto. The Examiner found that the motivation to
16
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

increase the thickness of the panel would have been to increase the
insulating properties of the panel. Ans. 6-7.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Nishimoto. Rather, the Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
motivation contradicts the Examiner’s motivation in support of combining
Benson and the Appellant’s admission, i.e., that one would decrease the
thickness of the panel walls or barrier sheets of Benson to reduce the volume
of the panel. The Appellant also argues that Benson discloses an insulation
panel having an “ideal panel thickness range” of about 2.5 mm. Thus, the
Appellant contends there would have been no reason to increase the
thickness of the panel disclosed in Benson. App. Br. 15.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As
discussed above, the thicknesses disclosed in Benson are merely illustrative.
See Benson 11:49-55. Moreover, we do not find that the motivation
proposed by the Examiner in the rejection of claims 5 and 6 contradicts the
motivation proposed by the Examiner in support of combining Benson and
the Appellant’s admission. Absent a showing of unexpected results, we find
that it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust the
thickness of the panel, including the thickness of the panel walls and/or the
filler material, based on the end use requirements of the panel. Woodruff,
919 F.2d at 1578.
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has failed to show that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the
Appellant’s admission, and Nishimoto.

17
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

3. Claim 8
The Examiner found that Benson teaches that the spacer beads are
coated with polystyrene or a similar adhesive material and are affixed to the
wall sheets of the insulation panel (Benson 7:9-14). The Examiner found
that Benson does not expressly disclose that the polystyrene layer is foamed
but found that Haase discloses that polystyrene can be foamed (Haase 2:47-
56). The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that polystyrene and foamed polystyrene are similar adhesive
materials. Thus, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use foamed polystyrene in the insulation
panel of Benson. The Examiner also concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to curve the panel using a
calendering operation for reasons discussed previously. Ans. 7-8.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s factual
findings with respect to Haase. Rather, the Appellant argues that the
Examiner has provided no reason for performing a calendering operation on
a planar panel having a layer of adhesive foam on at least one face of the
panel. The Appellant argues that Benson does not teach that a face of the
insulating panel is coated with an adhesive polymeric foam. Instead, the
Appellant argues that Benson teaches that spacer beads inside the panel are
coated with an adhesive. App. Br. 16.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. We
find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that adhesive
is a known expedient for attaching an article to a surface. See, e.g., Benson
7:9-14. We find that it would have been within the skill of the ordinary
artisan to include a layer of polystyrene or polystyrene foam on the face of
18
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

the curved insulation panel of Benson to secure the panel to the surface of an
article requiring insulation. See, e.g., Nishimoto 3:64-4:4 (vacuum
insulation panel fixed to a surface with an adhesive agent). Finally, for the
reasons discussed above, we find that the calendering operation disclosed in
Späth would have also been useful for curving such an insulation panel.
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has failed to show that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the
Appellant’s admission, and Haase.
F. DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, and the
Appellant’s admission is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the
Appellant’s admission, and Nishimoto is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Benson, Hunter, Späth, the Appellant’s admission,
and Haase is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

19
Appeal 2008-4306
Application 10/811,604

PL Initial:
sld

PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
ONE COMMERCE SQUARE
2005 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2200
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

20