Appeal 2006-3159
Application 10/233,318
direction than the first layer [i.e., fibrous backing material]” as required by
claim 1. Specifically, as the Examiner determined, because Seitz’s friction
coating (i.e., second layer) retains fluid at the interface of the friction surface
and the contact surface (i.e, atop the friction coating), the friction coating
(i.e., second layer) must be less permeable than the fibrous backing layer
(i.e., fibrous base material) in the normal and radial directions (Answer 6-8).
Moreover, Seitz’s express disclosure that the backing layer is “porous” to
permit the friction coating to impregnate the fibrous backing, necessarily
requires that the fibrous backing layer be more permeable than the friction
coating (i.e., second layer) in the normal and radial directions.
Accordingly, because the Examiner established a reasonable basis for
believing that Seitz’s friction coating possesses the particular normal and
radial permeabilities claim feature, the burden shifted to Appellants to prove
that Seitz does not possess the argued claim feature. Best, 562 F.2d at 1255,
195 USPQ at 433-34. Appellants have proffered no evidence that the argued
claim feature is not possessed by Seitz. Therefore, Appellants have not
satisfied their burden.
Therefore, we affirm the following rejections: (1) the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-31 over Lam I in view of Seitz, and (2)
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-31 over Lam II in view of
Seitz.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013