Appeal No. 1997-0110
Application 08/236,258
each other such that the fibrous component remains able to
move within the matrix, the examiner argues that he has reason
to believe that the interface is inherent to the matrix/fiber
combination (answer, page 3). Yagi, however, indicates that
because the fiber is silane-modified, the fiber shows good
adhesiveness to the matrix polymer (col. 15, lines 61-63; col.
10, lines 48-52). The examiner’s argument is not persuasive
because the examiner has not explained, taking into account
this teaching, why Yagi’s
fibers and matrix are essentially chemically unbonded to each
other such that the fibers are able to move within the matrix
as required by appellant’s claims.
The examiner argues that because appellant has not
disclosed any operative steps which would modify the
fiber/matrix interface, the burden shifts back to appellant to
show how his composite differs from that of Yagi (answer,
page 3). As discussed above, Yagi modifies his fibers to
provide adhesion. The examiner’s argument is not convincing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007