Appeal 2006-3159
Application 10/233,318
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lam I in view of Seitz.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lam II in view of Seitz.
With regard to each of the rejections, Appellants argue claim 1 only.
Accordingly, claims 2, 4, 5, and 7-31, which directly or ultimately depend
from claim 1, stand or fall with claim 1.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS: LAM I IN VIEW OF SEITZ & LAM II
IN VIEW OF SEITZ
Appellants argue that none of the references disclose a friction
material wherein “the second layer has a lower permeability in the radial
direction and a lower permeability in the normal direction than the first
layer” as required by claim 1 (Br. 6 and 7). Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not established that Seitz’s friction coating has the claimed
normal and radial permeabilities (Br. 6 and 8). Appellants contend that the
Examiner has relied on hindsight to determine that Seitz’s friction coating
inherently has the claimed lower radial and normal permeabilities (Br. 6;
Reply Br. 5).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
Appellants have not provided any arguments regarding the
Examiner’s findings that Lam I and Lam II disclose the second layer average
thickness being about 30-200 μm, the friction particles having an average
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013