Appeal 2007-1382
Application 10/334,871
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) is Jones “within the scope of the relevant art,” i.e., is Jones
analogous art? ; (2) does the proper claim construction for the term “vapor
retardant” read on the product disclosed by Jones?; and (3) does the
combination of references as proposed by the Examiner render Jones
inoperable and unsatisfactory for its intended purpose?
We determine that the Examiner has established that Jones is
analogous prior art, that the term “vapor retardant” as correctly construed is
at least obvious in view of the teachings of Jones, and the combination of
references does not render Jones inoperable or unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima
facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM all rejections presented in this appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Jones discloses a breathable material for use in various
applications, including housewrap materials and roofing
underlayment (¶ [0012]);
(2) Jones teaches that housewrap materials must be permeable to
water vapor to allow the vapor to escape from the wall, thus
preventing water damage or growth of molds on the walls, but
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013