Ex Parte Knapp

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2006

09975386 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENNETH DAVID KNAPP
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1809
Application No. 09/975,386
Technology Center 3600
____________

Heard: July 11, 2006
____________

Before FRANKFORT, BAHR and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-9.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 2
Application No. 09/975,386

BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a blanket of fibrous building insulation comprising a
fibrous insulation layer adhered by a layer of adhesive to a facing sheet, the facing sheet having a
grid of perforations therethrough with spots of the adhesive being visible through the
perforations and to a method of making and installing such blanket of insulation. The blanket is
made by forming the perforations in the facing sheet prior to applying the adhesive and applying
the adhesive such that it will bleed into the preformed perforations. The visible spots of
adhesive form a cutting guide on the facing sheet so that the blanket may be cut to size in situ to
correspond with spacing between studs or the like that are non-standard. A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ryan US 649,363 May 8, 1900
Broderick US 4,709,523 Dec. 1, 1987
Ernest US 6,444,289 B1 Sep. 3, 2002 (Aug. 31, 1999)

The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Ernest.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ernest in view
of Broderick.
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ernest.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ernest in view
of Ryan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed December
22, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellant's
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 3
Application No. 09/975,386

brief (filed March 9, 2005) and reply brief (filed January 17, 2006) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reason explained below, we cannot sustain
any of the examiner’s rejections.
Independent claim 1 recites a blanket of insulation comprising a fibrous insulation layer,
a thin facing sheet, a thin adhesive layer, a grid of perforations through the facing sheet and spots
of adhesive visible through the perforations. Independent claim 8 recites a method of making a
blanket of fibrous insulation comprising providing a thin layer of facing material having
preformed perforations therethrough, applying a thin layer of adhesive to a surface of the facing
material while maintaining the adhesive at a sufficient viscosity that it will blend into the
perforations an amount sufficient to be visible from an opposite surface of the facing material,
applying a layer of fibrous insulation to the adhesive-applied surface of the facing material and
allowing the adhesive to set and adhere the facing material to the insulation layer.
Ernest discloses a perforated faced insulation assembly including a porous insulation
layer 18 attached to a facing layer 20. The facing layer has a pressure-balancing region with
perforations formed in the facing layer. The perforations allow sufficient gas flow through the
facing layer for adequately balancing the pressures acting on the facing layer within the pressure-
balancing region (col. 2, ll. 6-10). Ernest teaches the following:
The pressure-balancing regions 20c, 20d each include
perforations 26 formed through the facing layer 20. Preferably, the
perforations 26 are circular as best shown in FIG. 3. Alternatively,
the perforations 26 may be any desired shape such as square, oval,
irregular or the like. The perforations 26 are preferably formed
after the facing layer 20 has been adhered to the insulation layer
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 4
Application No. 09/975,386

18, and more preferably, after the adhesive 24 has been cured. By
forming the perforations 26 after the facing layer 20 is adhered to
the insulation layer 18 and after the adhesive 24 is cured, the
perforations 26 are substantially void or free of the adhesive 24.
Conversely, if the perforations 26 were formed in the facing layer
20 prior to curing the adhesive 24, the adhesive 24 could
completely or at least partially fill the perforations 26. The
importance of the perforations 26 being substantially void of the
adhesive 24 is twofold. First, forced gas units benefiting from this
invention may be subject to various flame spread and smoke test
standards. In particular, HVAC units are required to pass United
Laboratories flame spread and smoke development test standard
UL 2550. In order to pass the test standard defined in UL 2550,
the perforations 26 need to be substantially void of the adhesive
24. Second, if the adhesive 24 were present in the perforations 26,
the intended function of the perforations 26, which is to allow
sufficient gas flow through the facing layer 20, would be defeated
or at least compromised. Specifically, the flow rates across the
pressure-balancing regions 20c, 20d cause a relatively large drop
in the static pressure acting on the outer surface 20a within the
pressure-balancing regions 20c, 20d. In turn, the drop in the static
pressure acting on the outer surface 20a creates a relatively high
difference in the static pressures acting on the outer and inner
surfaces 20a, 20b within the pressure-balancing regions 20c, 20d.
The perforations 26 allow for the venting of the relatively high
static pressure acting on the inner surface 20b to balance or at least
adequately reduce the pressure differential between the static
pressures acting on the outer and inner surfaces 20a, 20b. If the
flow of air through the perforations 26 is restricted by the presence
of the adhesive 24 within the perforations 26, the relatively high
static pressure differential between the outer and inner surfaces
20a, 20b could cause the pressure-balancing regions 20c, 20d to
balloon or be drawn away from the side panels 14a, 14b. In turn,
this ballooning effect could cause the facing layer 20 and the
insulation layer 18 to become separated. By allowing air to flow
through the facing layer 20, the perforations 26 reduce the static
pressure differential between the outer and inner surfaces 20a, 20b.
As such, the facing layer 20 is less likely to balloon. In turn, the
facing layer 20 and the insulation layer 18 are less likely to
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 5
Application No. 09/975,386

become separated. The flow rates associated with the nonpressure-
balancing region 20e do not give rise to static pressure differentials
that would jeopardize the retention between the facing layer 20 and
the insulation layer 18. Accordingly, it is not necessary to form
perforations in the non-pressure-balancing region 20e [col. 4, first
full para.].

One of ordinary skill in the art would have quite clearly understood from the passage of
Ernest quoted above that it is critical to Ernest’s invention that the perforations 26 be kept
substantially void of adhesive and, further, that the preferred means to achieve such a result is to
form the facing layer perforations 26 after the facing layer 20 has been adhered to the insulation
layer 18 and, more preferably, after the adhesive 24 has been cured. While Ernest does use
language such as “preferably” and “substantially,” Ernest provides a strong and clear teaching
away from permitting the adhesive to bleed into the perforations in a manner so as to obscure the
perforations. Accordingly, the examiner’s determination that Ernest provides a disclosure of a
blanket of insulation wherein spots of adhesive are visible through the perforations in the thin
facing sheet, as recited in claim 1, or a method of making a blanket of insulation comprising
steps of providing a layer of facing material having preformed perforations and applying
adhesive to a surface of the facing material in such a manner or at such a viscosity that it will
bleed into the perforations in an amount to be visible from an opposite surface thereof, as recited
in claim 8, is unsound.
In light of the above, the rejections of claims 1 and 8, as well as claims 2 and 4 depending
from claim 1, as being anticipated by Ernest, and of claims 5-7 , which depend from claim 1, as
being unpatentable over Ernest, cannot be sustained.
The examiner’s application of Broderick and Ryan provide no cure for the deficiency of
Ernest discussed above. Accordingly, the rejections of claim 3, which depends from claim 1, as
being unpatentable over Ernest in view of Broderick and claim 9, which incorporates the method
of claim 8, as being unpatentable over Ernest in view of Ryan cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 6
Application No. 09/975,386

CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-9 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-1809 Page 7
Application No. 09/975,386

PAUL AND PAUL
2000 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103