Appeal No. 2007-0886
Application 09/914,181
Examiner provided sufficient facts and reasons to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of EP ‘174 and EP ‘803 in the manner
claimed?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm both grounds of rejection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) EP ’803 describes a known acoustical attenuating panel which
includes layers positioned in the following order: a woven wire mesh, a
perforate face sheet, a honeycomb core and a solid backface sheet (EP
‘803 [0002]).
2) EP ‘803 states that a problem with this known structure, when used
in a jet engine housing, is that “when mechanics work inside the inlet, or
when certain foreign objects strike the liner, the exposed mesh skin is
relatively easily susceptible to damage which, of course, must then be
repaired to prevent ingestion of mesh structure into the engine” (EP ‘803
[0003]).
3) EP ‘803 is directed to solving this problem by constructing an
acoustical attenuating panel which includes layers positioned in the
following order: a perforate face sheet to be exposed to the exterior, a
mesh structure, a honeycomb core, and a solid backface sheet (EP ‘803
[0009]).
4) EP ‘174 describes a method of making an acoustical attenuating
panel in which an acoustical damping cloth is placed on a mold, followed
by a filament layer, a honeycomb structure and a reflector. See US ‘038,
5:45-64.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013