Appeal 2007-1382
Application 10/334,871
of record, Appellants have not established that the “vapor retarder”
discussed in the ASHRAE Handbook is equivalent to the “vapor retardant”
roofing underlayment material of the claimed invention. Third, Appellants
only state their “belief” regarding what “1 perm” is equivalent to in terms of
water vapor transmission rate, with no supporting evidence.
Appellants argue that modifying Jones to be “vapor retardant” would
render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose since Jones teaches
stretching the structure to make the coating microporous (Br. 8:12-14). This
argument is not persuasive. We note that Jones teaches stretching of the
crystalline polymer to render the material microporous or “breathable” (see
factual finding (4) listed above). However, this degree of “breathability” is
for material used as housewrap material, where it is necessary that the
material be permeable to water vapor, and have a water vapor transmission
rate of greater than 150 grams per square meter per 24 hours (see factual
findings (2) and (5) listed above). We determine that it was known in the art
that roofing underlayment material should be somewhat resistant to water
vapor (see factual finding (6) listed above), and that Jones teaches that the
“breathability of the materials according to the invention may be controlled
as desired for the intended application” (see factual finding (5) listed above).
Accordingly, we determine that it would have been well within the ordinary
skill in this art to modify the water vapor transmission rate of the materials
of Jones depending on the desired application, i.e., lessening the water vapor
transmission for material used in roofing underlayment to help in its
protective barrier function.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013