Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
58. Tilton argues further that it is improper to extract a teaching from
Sorrick that the thickness of the meltblown layer is necessary to prevent
damage to the layer during handling prior to lamination, because the prior art
reference must be considered as a whole. (Br. at 17–18.)
59. Similarly, Tilton criticizes the Examiner's reliance on the teaching that
the Lutzow NMN structure may be used as a filter, because the Sorrick filter
is an "obviously different type of filter." (Br. at 18.)
60. Tilton also argues that there is no optimization of a result effective
variable in a known process involved in selecting the thickness range recited
in its claims because the references are not properly combined. (Br. at 19.)
Claims 2, 4, 11–15, 19, and 20
61. The Examiner finds that Lutzow and Sorrick teach all thickness and
weight per unit area limitations but for those of the first and second fibrous
layers. (Answer at 5.)
62. The Examiner concedes that neither Lutzow nor Sorrick teaches the
thickness or density of the first fibrous layer (Answer at 5).
63. The Examiner finds that Nissan describes an insulating structure with
nonwoven cloth made from fibers having diameters of 0.1 to 10 microns,
densities of 0.03 to 0.06 g/cm3 [1.87 to 3.74 lbs/ft3], and thickness of 5 to
15 mm for the surface and back layers. (Answer at 5.)
64. The Examiner reasons that the use of the fibrous layers taught by
Nissan in the laminates disclosed by Lutzow would have been obvious
because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have used the
laminate "in an insulation application with a thickness appropriate for sound
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013