Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
absorption applications as the laminate disclosed by Lutzow et al." (Answer
at 5.)
Tilton's Argument
65. Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4, 11–15, 19, and 20, Tilton
objects that Nissan further conflicts with the teachings of Lutzow and
Sorrick. (Br. at 20.)
66. Specifically, Tilton points out that the Examiner relies on Sorrick for a
(inner) meltblown fiber layer 0.04 to 0.07 cm thick and on Nissan for a
teaching that the surface layers may be between 5 and 15 mm thick.
67. However, according to Tilton, in so doing, the Examiner ignores the
express teaching in Nissan that the internal layer should be 2 to 5 times as
thick as the surface layer. (Br. at 20.)
68. In contrast, Tilton argues, the outer layers specified by its claims are
thicker (e.g., 0.5 to 5 cm) than the inner layer (0.0127 to 0.254 cm). (Br.
at 21.)
69. Tilton concludes that Nissan teaches away from the claimed
invention, that the combination of references is improper, and that rejection
should be reversed. (Br. at 21.)
C. Discussion
An invention that would have been obvious is not patentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The analysis underlying an obviousness inquiry has been
outlined by the Supreme Court:
the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013