Appeal 2007-2181
Application 10/261,862
because it was said to be well known in the art that bond strength is directly
related to porosity as shown by Shields (Answer, 5).
We note that the Examiner relied upon Seth as disclosing
conventional techniques for applying a polymer to a pair of bonding nip rolls
in either a film or molten form (Answer, 4).
C. Appellants' position
Appellants argue a lack of motivation to combine Nakaishi and
Yamamoto (Appeal Br., 5-6; Reply Br., 4-5), especially since Nakaishi does
not teach that aramid papers have poor resin impregnation ability (Reply Br.,
4). Appellants further argue that neither Shields nor Seth cure the
deficiencies of Nakaishi and Yamamoto (Appeal Br., 6; Reply Br., 5).
D. Analysis
The claimed method on appeal requires a step of "calendering an
aramid paper between two heated rolls which differ by a temperature of at
least 20 degrees centrigrade wherein a surface of the paper exposed to the
lower roll temperature is more porous than an opposite surface exposed to a
higher roll temperature." Yamamoto appears to describe the diametrically
opposite process, i.e., a calendering process wherein the surface of the
aramid paper exposed to the higher roll temperature is more porous after
treatment. The Examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, how
the differential calendering of Yamamoto teaches or suggests the differential
calendering step of the claims on appeal. In other words, even if the aramid
layer was more porous prior than the mixed layer of aramid and heat-
resistant organic fiber prior to Yamamoto's calendering process, it is not
apparent to us on this record that it remains the more porous layer after
treatment. In short, the Examiner has not carried his evidentiary burden.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013