Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 5
Application No. 09/975,386
become separated. The flow rates associated with the nonpressure-
balancing region 20e do not give rise to static pressure differentials
that would jeopardize the retention between the facing layer 20 and
the insulation layer 18. Accordingly, it is not necessary to form
perforations in the non-pressure-balancing region 20e [col. 4, first
full para.].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have quite clearly understood from the passage of
Ernest quoted above that it is critical to Ernest’s invention that the perforations 26 be kept
substantially void of adhesive and, further, that the preferred means to achieve such a result is to
form the facing layer perforations 26 after the facing layer 20 has been adhered to the insulation
layer 18 and, more preferably, after the adhesive 24 has been cured. While Ernest does use
language such as “preferably” and “substantially,” Ernest provides a strong and clear teaching
away from permitting the adhesive to bleed into the perforations in a manner so as to obscure the
perforations. Accordingly, the examiner’s determination that Ernest provides a disclosure of a
blanket of insulation wherein spots of adhesive are visible through the perforations in the thin
facing sheet, as recited in claim 1, or a method of making a blanket of insulation comprising
steps of providing a layer of facing material having preformed perforations and applying
adhesive to a surface of the facing material in such a manner or at such a viscosity that it will
bleed into the perforations in an amount to be visible from an opposite surface thereof, as recited
in claim 8, is unsound.
In light of the above, the rejections of claims 1 and 8, as well as claims 2 and 4 depending
from claim 1, as being anticipated by Ernest, and of claims 5-7 , which depend from claim 1, as
being unpatentable over Ernest, cannot be sustained.
The examiner’s application of Broderick and Ryan provide no cure for the deficiency of
Ernest discussed above. Accordingly, the rejections of claim 3, which depends from claim 1, as
being unpatentable over Ernest in view of Broderick and claim 9, which incorporates the method
of claim 8, as being unpatentable over Ernest in view of Ryan cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007