Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
barium sulfate (FF 16) – the limitation recited in claim 3. This teaching is
cumulative to that of Yoerkie who also describes barium sulfate as a sound
barrier (FF 13), but specifically for an aircraft – that same context in which
the claimed structure occurs.
In sum, we find that the Examiner has met the burden of establishing
prima facie obvious for claim 7. Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18
fall with claim 7 because separate arguments for their patentability were not
presented. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 3 and 9
Claims 3 and 9 recite that the “mass barrier layer includes a vinyl
which is mass loaded with a barium sulfate powder.”
The Examiner finds that the Yoerkie and Allen teach “that the
addition of a mass barrier of vinyl and barium sulfate optimize the sound
reduction of a foam sound insulation” (Answer 7; see FF 11-13). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to persons of ordinary
skill in the art “to further provide the insulated walls of Sloan” with a mass
barrier comprising barium sulfate as taught by Yoerkie and Allen because it
would have been known to enhance the walls’ “sound deafening” properties
(Answer 7).
Appellant contends that none “of the cited references . . . disclose or
suggest a vinyl which is mass loaded with a barium sulfate power as a mass
barrier layer and is mounted to a multitude of frame members” (Appeal Br.
12).
We do not agree. Yoerkie very specifically describes a blanket that
includes a mass barrier “made from . . . vinyl which is mass loaded with
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013