Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
second) layer. The Examiner finds that neither Lutzow nor Sorrick teaches
these parameters, and relies on Nissan for its teachings of a thickness for the
front and back layer of from 5 to 15 cm and a density of 0.03 to 0.06 g/cm3
[1.87 to 3.74 lbs/ft3], which are within the required ranges. (Answer at 5.)
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to modify the fibrous
layer of the laminate and provide the thickness and density taught by Nissan
"in an insulation application with a thickness appropriate for sound
absorption applications as the laminate disclosed by Lutzow et al." (Answer
at 5.)
Tilton does not dispute the Examiner's findings as to Nissan. Instead,
Tilton argues that the teachings of Nissan "conflict" with the teachings of
Lutzow and Sorrick. (Br. at 20.) Specifically, Tilton points out that Nissan
teaches that the inner layer is 2 to 5 times thicker than the surface layers
(id.), whereas, according to Tilton, "if the surface layer is 5 to 15 mm as
taught by [Nissan] reference and the intermediate meltblown fiber layer is
0.04 to 0.07 cm as taught by Sorrick, it is very clear that the intermediate
layer is not two to five times as thick as the surface layer." (Id.) Tilton
applies the same argument to claim 11, which recites first and second fibrous
layers having a thickness of between about 0.5 and about 5.0 cm, and a
thickness of the layer of meltblown polypropylene fibers of between about
0.0127 and 0.254 cm. (Br. at 21.)
The Examiner responds to this argument by arguing that Nissan
further shows that thickness of the intermediate layer is a "cause-
[sic: result-] effective" variable, and that its optimization would be
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art of laminates because "the
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013