Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
not only by Sakaki, but also by Belley and Williams. Williams
expressly recognizes the advantageous utilization of a
polyurethane foam liner in an exhaust air muffler for a vacuum
unit for reducing air exhaust noise (see column 2, lines 22-
26). The Belley patent itself also recognizes the advantageous
utilization of a noise-absorbing polyurethane liner in a
muffler, albeit in a silencer 22 for the motor-cooling fan 20
in the central vacuum cleaning unit.
In light of the foregoing evidence, it follows that the
advantages of utilizing noise-absorbing foam liners in air
exhaust liners mufflers for reducing noise due to air flow
were known in the art at the time of appellants’ invention,
thus providing the motivation or suggestion for one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Belley’s exhaust air
muffler 18 with a foam, noise-absorbing liner. In this regard,
the skilled artisan is presumed to know something more about
the art than what the references expressly disclose. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Thus, contrary to appellants’ argument regarding a lack of
suggestion on page 3 of the brief, we share the examiner’s
view that it would have been obvious to provide Belley’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007