Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
thickness of the middle layer is only dependent on the particular application
of the laminate." (Answer at 7.)
In the present case, Tilton has made it clear that the Examiner has
failed to show that the invention claimed involves the use of the prior art
elements according to their established functions. Each layer, in the
invention and in the references, is present for a purpose. In Lutzow, the
outer needled layers perform a wicking function, while the inner meltblown
layer performs a sorptive function. In Sorrick, the outer needled layers
provide strength and increased capacity for filter material, while the inner
meltblown layer provides filtering capacity. In Nissan, the surface
layers 5 to 15 mm thick are made from nonwoven webs of microfibers
(diameter 0.1 to 10 microns) of polypropylene, apparently selected for high
sound absorption near 500 Hz. (Nissan at 12, ¶ 11.)2 Nissan teaches that the
inner surface layer should be two to five times thicker in order to optimize
what is translated as "air spring" and "movement spring" of the nonwoven
fabric. (Nissan at 16, ¶ 20.) It appears that these properties relate somehow
to the acoustic response of the insulation. (Id.)
The Examiner has not explained in terms of the teachings of Lutzow
or Sorrick why one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the thickness
of the outer layers of Nissan in the structures of Lutzow or Sorrick. It is not
enough to note that Lutzow indicates that its disclosed structure may have
unexpected performance characteristics in other applications: this is true of
2 We rely on the Thomson/Derwent machine assisted translation in the
record. As is frequently the case, the machine-assisted translation is not in
idiomatic English, and is of limited value in assessing the state of the prior
art.
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013