Appeal No. 2007-0886
Application 09/914,181
benefits in placing the layer with structural properties on the exterior of an
acoustical attenuating panel (Answer 15). The Examiner notes, in particular,
the advantage of eliminating possible break off and damage to the layer with
acoustical properties (Answer 15, referencing EP ‘803, 1:32-40).
Appellants argue that
[t]he sequence of the process claimed on appeal, includes a step
wherein the structural layer does not cover the acoustic layer,
but wherein the structural layer is covered by the acoustic
panel. This step is in direct contrast with what would be the
normal practice apparent to one skilled in the art contemplating
both EPO 897 174 and EPO 911 803.
(Reply 2-3). According to Appellants, “[n]either ‘174 nor ‘803 teaches or
suggests to first put reinforcing filaments on a mold and then to put the
acoustic liner above such filaments” (Br. 5).
As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments fail to address
the relevant inquiry in determining obviousness, which is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention (See Answer 15). See In re Kotzab,
217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In our view,
the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis to conclude that the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that he should carry
out the claimed process and would also have revealed a reasonable
expectation of success in so doing.2 See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493,
2 Appellants are also directed to the language in EP ‘174 which states that
the acoustic damping cloth can be draped or wrapped on the reinforcing
filaments (FF 5) which appears to teach the steps of placing a layer with
structural properties on a mold followed by a layer with acoustical
properties.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013