Appeal 2007-1382
Application 10/334,871
must be sufficiently impermeable to air and liquids to insulate the
wall against wind and rain (¶ [0003]);
(3) Jones discloses many combinations of multi-layer laminates on the
fabric layer, including various crystalline polymers, fillers, and
laminate films of low density polyethylene, medium density
polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, and polypropylene
(¶¶ [0014]-[0016] and [0021]; see Example 1 in ¶ [0034]);
(4) Jones teaches that the crystalline polymer is rendered microporous
by a relatively small amount of stretching (¶¶ [0018] and [0024]);
(5) Jones teaches that the “breathability of the materials according to
the invention may be controlled as desired for the intended
application of the materials,” and when employed as housewrap
materials, the materials suitably have a water vapor transmission
rate greater than 150 g/square meter per 24 hours (¶ [0023]);
(6) Wiercinski teaches that the function of the waterproofing
membrane underlayment is to seal around roofing fasteners and to
protect against damage from ice dams and wind-driven rain (col.
1, ll. 25-37). 1
Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. See
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Determination that a reference is “relevant prior art” or analogous prior art is
1 We do not list here any other factual findings from the Wiercinski,
Ahluwalia, Huffines, and Hubbard references since Appellants do not
contest or dispute any of the Examiner’s factual findings from these
references (see the Brief and Reply Brief in their entirety, especially Br. 7-
8). Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s undisputed factual findings from
these references as found in the record.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013