Appeal 2007-1942
Application 10/368,975
layer) and another polyethylene layer is on the front of the central strand
layer (i.e., the additional layer of “impact absorbing material”).
However, we do not agree that Sacks teaches a polyethylene layer
placed on the front of the central layer. The Examiner reasoned that the
“impact absorbing material” of Sacks can be a polyethylene layer. However,
only polycarbonate, “one or more sheets of felted aramid fibres” and/or
“steel or like strong material” are discussed in Sacks as being “impact
absorbing.” (FF 13 and 14).
The Examiner notes that Sacks discloses that “said backing layer acts
to absorb and spread shock produced on impact.” (FF 9). However, it is
apparent that the “backing layer” referred to at that portion of Sacks’
Specification is the polycarbonate “backing layer” and not the polyethylene
“auxiliary backing layer”. (FF 8 and 9).
Accordingly since Sacks does not teach a pair of polyethylene layers
disposed symmetrically about, i.e., having one polyethylene layer on one
side and another polyethylene on the other side of, the central aramid strand,
we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner relies upon the same reasoning as in the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) in finding that the Sacks reference teaches polyethylene
layers disposed symmetrically about the central aramid strand. Since, as
explained above, we do not agree that Sacks teaches such a structure we also
REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013