Appeal No. 2006-1666
Application No. 10/211,683
[of Porter] separated by a foam board are in overlying laminated
relation because they are both in laminated and overlying
relation to the foam” (page 16 of answer, first paragraph).
Indeed, the definition for the term “overlie” offered by
appellants, which is “to lie over or upon,” does not require
contact and, therefore, supports the examiner’s position. We
concur with the examiner that one layer of scrim material in
Porter’s Example 8 overlies both a foam board and another layer
of scrim material.
As for the claim 17 recitation that the “laminated
structure being characterized in having a lateral stiffness
sufficient to be frictionally held between a pair of elongated
supports,” we concur with the examiner’s reasoning regarding the
breath of the claim limitation in relation to the lateral
stiffness of Porter’s foam board (see paragraph bridging pages
16 and 17 of answer).
Concerning Porter’s failure to disclose the use of foamed
plastic filaments, we agree with the examiner’s legal conclusion
that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the Applicants’ invention was made to foam
the plastics filaments of Porter in order to, as taught by Li et
al., improve the thermal insulation properties and make the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007