Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
Analysis
In making an obviousness determination over a combination of prior
art references, it is important to identify a reason why persons of ordinary
skill in the art would have attempted to make the claimed subject matter.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
1396 (2007). Here, the Examiner finds that cabin noise is a major problem
in aircrafts (FF 11). The Examiner also finds that the prior art teaches mass
barriers to address this problem (FF 12, 13). Thus, the Examiner finds that
person of ordinary skills in the art would have had reason to have provided
the insulating elements of Sloan with a mass barrier to improve cabin noise
levels to produce the invention of claim 7 (Answer 7).
Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s proposed combination, however, fails to take
account of how the purported sound attenuation material as
taught by Allen or Yoerkie would be attached to the insulated
walls of Sloan. Contrary to the Examiner’s proposed
combination, there are no exposed frame members in Sloan to
which the noise reducing blanket of Yoerkie can be attached as
taught therein (see Figure 7 of Yoerkie) since the foam of Sloan
is completely encased within the bag 36 prior to fitting between
the metal skin 20 and the trim panel 22 (see Figure 3 . . . ).
Thus, even if one was to combine Yoerkie with Sloan as
purported by the Examiner, the combination would still not
disclose, teach, or suggest a mass barrier layer mounted to a
multitude of frame members.
(Appeal Br. 9.)
We are not convinced. Fig. 3, referenced by Appellant, shows a frame
member 12 (FF 8) wrapped with the insulating material (FF 8). However,
not all embodiments are described in Sloan to have frame insulating
elements (FF 8; see also Sloan, at col. 3, ll. 43-48, which describes an
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013