Appeal 2006-0899
Application 09/912,290
in its entirety.) Rather, we find that the mineral fiber insulation web
described in Brandt, like the Appellants’ blanket made of randomly oriented
and entangled fibers, is formed by expelling or spraying fibers from rapidly
rotating spinning-wheels. (Compare Brandt at page 14 with specification at
4.) Second, as found by the Examiner at pages 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Answer,
we find that the fibers of Brandt’s web are lying in planes that extend
substantially perpendicular to the planes of its two major and end surfaces
and substantially parallel to the planes of its two lateral surfaces.1 See also
Brandt’s Figures 8-10. Thus, we determine that the claims read on the
intermediate mineral fiber-insulation product itself or the final product
employing such intermediate product described in Brandt within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2,
4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
3. OBVIOUSNESS
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims
3, and 6 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Brandt and Michelsen. (See Answer at page 4.)
According to the Examiner (Answer at 4-5):
It would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
use polymeric fibers in Brandt et al. in order to use
fibers that are easier to process and are recyclable…
[and] to use a binderless web in the Brandt et al.
1 According to the Appellants at page 2 of the specification, “substantially
perpendicular” and “substantially parallel” include perpendicular and
substantially perpendicular, and parallel and substantially parallel,
respectively.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007