Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
barium sulfate powder” (FF 13; Answer 6). The blanket is disclosed by
Yoerkie as being attached to the aircraft frames (FF 14). Thus, we see no
error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 3 and 9.
Claims 13 and 15
Claims 13 and 15 further limit the claimed mass barrier layer by
requiring that the “mass barrier layer is adhered to said foam and said
multitude of frame members.”
Appellant contends that “it is not possible to adhere anything to the
foam layer of Sloan as the foam layer is completely enclosed within the
tightly fitting bag 36 of the thin moisture impervious flexible material. That
is, there can be no direct adherence in the proposed combination as claimed”
(Appeal Br. 12-13).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Yoerkie describes an
embodiment in which the “the foam portion [of the blanket] is attached to
the mass barrier portion with an adhesive” (FF 15) – the same configuration
which is recited in claims 13 and 15. In Yoerkie, the foam portions are not
described as being interference or force fit between the frame members. But
Sloan teaches that such a tight fit is desirable to minimize free space in the
cells (FF 7), thus giving the skilled person reason to have force fit the foam
of Yoerkie’s sound reducing blanket between the frame members.
Furthermore, while Sloan describes encasing the foam insulating elements in
plastic, Sloan also acknowledges in its background section that the elements
are “usually” and therefore not always enclosed by plastic (FF 2).
Consequently, Yoerkie’s description of adhering the mass barrier to the
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013