Appeal 2007-2079 Application 10/185,220 Appellant has not directed us to evidence that establishes the airflow resistance of the reference is not inherent in Suzuki. Appellant’s discussion of the calculations for the thickness of the examples in Suzuki is not representative of the closest prior art (Br. 10). Suzuki provides a discussion of the various layers in column 3. Suzuki discloses the endpoints of the described range for the weight per unit area for the upper layer to be 35 g/m2 and the density for the upper layer to be 0.01g/cm3 (Col. 3, ll. 3-11). Utilizing the formula provided by Appellant, Reply Brief page 3, the weight per unit area of 35 g/m2 divided by the density value of 0.01g/cm3 arrives at the thickness value of 1.378 inches. This thickness falls within the scope of the claimed invention. Regarding the subject matter of claims 5 and 9, Appellant contends that the Examiner has ignored the limitations of these claims (Reply Br. 4). Appellant’s position is not persuasive. The Examiner referenced the range of denier for the fibers presented in the Suzuki reference as suggestive of the claimed fiber diameters (Answer 3). The Examiner cited the Delanty and Shimada references as suggestive of coating and printing on the exposed surface of the facing layer. Appellant has not directed us to evidence in rebuttal to the Examiner’s position. In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons presented by the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013