Appeal 2007-2079
Application 10/185,220
Appellant has not directed us to evidence that establishes the airflow
resistance of the reference is not inherent in Suzuki.
Appellant’s discussion of the calculations for the thickness of the
examples in Suzuki is not representative of the closest prior art (Br. 10).
Suzuki provides a discussion of the various layers in column 3. Suzuki
discloses the endpoints of the described range for the weight per unit area for
the upper layer to be 35 g/m2 and the density for the upper layer to be
0.01g/cm3 (Col. 3, ll. 3-11). Utilizing the formula provided by Appellant,
Reply Brief page 3, the weight per unit area of 35 g/m2 divided by the
density value of 0.01g/cm3 arrives at the thickness value of 1.378 inches.
This thickness falls within the scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding the subject matter of claims 5 and 9, Appellant contends
that the Examiner has ignored the limitations of these claims (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant’s position is not persuasive. The Examiner referenced the range
of denier for the fibers presented in the Suzuki reference as suggestive of the
claimed fiber diameters (Answer 3). The Examiner cited the Delanty and
Shimada references as suggestive of coating and printing on the exposed
surface of the facing layer. Appellant has not directed us to evidence in
rebuttal to the Examiner’s position.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons presented by the
Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013