Ex Parte Drost - Page 11

               Appeal 2007-2888                                                                             
               Application 11/017,602                                                                       
                                                 Analysis                                                   
                      In making an obviousness determination over a combination of prior                    
               art references, it is important to identify a reason why persons of ordinary                 
               skill in the art would have attempted to make the claimed subject matter.                    
               See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385,                   
               1396 (2007).  Here, the Examiner finds that cabin noise is a major problem                   
               in aircrafts (FF 11).  The Examiner also finds that the prior art teaches mass               
               barriers to address this problem (FF 12, 13).  Thus, the Examiner finds that                 
               person of ordinary skills in the art would have had reason to have provided                  
               the insulating elements of Sloan with a mass barrier to improve cabin noise                  
               levels to produce the invention of claim 7 (Answer 7).                                       
                      Appellant contends that the                                                           
                      Examiner’s proposed combination, however, fails to take                               
                      account of how the purported sound attenuation material as                            
                      taught by Allen or Yoerkie would be attached to the insulated                         
                      walls of Sloan. Contrary to the Examiner’s proposed                                   
                      combination, there are no exposed frame members in Sloan to                           
                      which the noise reducing blanket of Yoerkie can be attached as                        
                      taught therein (see Figure 7 of Yoerkie) since the foam of Sloan                      
                      is completely encased within the bag 36 prior to fitting between                      
                      the metal skin 20 and the trim panel 22 (see Figure 3 . . . ).                        
                      Thus, even if one was to combine Yoerkie with Sloan as                                
                      purported by the Examiner, the combination would still not                            
                      disclose, teach, or suggest a mass barrier layer mounted to a                         
                      multitude of frame members.                                                           
               (Appeal Br. 9.)                                                                              
                      We are not convinced.  Fig. 3, referenced by Appellant, shows a frame                 
               member 12 (FF 8) wrapped with the insulating material (FF 8).  However,                      
               not all embodiments are described in Sloan to have frame insulating                          
               elements (FF 8; see also Sloan, at col. 3, ll. 43-48, which describes an                     

                                                    11                                                      

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013