Appeal No. 2007-0886
Application 09/914,181
5) EP ‘174 states that “the reinforcing filaments can be deposited with
the same mold and that the acoustic damping cloth can be draped or
wrapped on these filaments according to the use intended for the panel
and according to its shape.” US ‘038, 6:56-59.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Appellants contend that the present invention differs from the applied
prior art in that the claimed process requires forming the layer with
structural properties on a mold before any other layers are applied (Br. 2).
Appellants state that “claims 9 and 10 . . . differ from each other
immaterially as to the way in which this is done.” Therefore, Appellants
present the same argument in traversing both grounds of rejection (Br. 2)
(“[T]he claims stand or fall together.”).
Appellants concede that all of the claimed layers are known in the art
in various combinations and arrangements (Br. 2). However, Appellants
argue that the prior art fails to provide a motivation or suggestion to switch
the process steps in EP ‘174 such that the layer with structural properties is
placed on the mold prior to the layer with acoustical properties. Appellants’
arguments are directed solely to the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to EP ‘174 and EP ‘803.
The Examiner found that EP ‘174 discloses a process for
manufacturing an acoustical attenuating panel in which a layer with
acoustical properties (an acoustical damping cloth) is placed on a mold,
followed by a layer with structural properties (a filament layer), a cellular
structure, and a reflector (Answer 15). The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to have reversed the order of the first two steps of
the EP ‘174 process based on the disclosure in EP ‘803 that there are known
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013