Appeal No. 2000-1646
Application 08/467,425
The Appellants, on the other hand, state that there is no logical connection
between Nakamura or Murray which would cause a skilled worker to combine the
references in the manner which has been done by the Examiner, and that even were
there incentive, there is insufficient teaching in the combination of the claimed process
(Appeal Brief, page 8, lines 7-11).
Our review of the Nakamura reference indicates it discloses a susceptor which is
an impregnated reinforcing fiber of the same type as that in the material to be joined in a
resin of the same type as the material to be joined. (See, e.g. page 4, lines 12 - 18).
Nakamura further indicates that these fibers may be arranged to result in a joint which
has similar structure and material properties as the other parts of the joining members.
(Page 5, lines 18-25). Murray does disclose that the induction heatable material may be
concentrated in selected portions or zones of the composite article (Murray, column 5,
lines 45 - 46) and that induction heatable fibers may be interwoven with non-induction
heatable fibers. (Murray, column 5, lines 50-52).
The Appellants make several arguments regarding the purported differences
between the “present invention” and the references (See, e.g. Appeal brief, page 8,
lines 25 et seq.). Most of those arguments are irrelevant2, as the Appellants have
ignored the broad scope of claims 10 and 11 and cite at least in part to elements which
are not present in the claimed subject matter.
2 The Appellants make arguments relating to a susceptor (Appeal Brief, page 8, last 2 lines); there is no
requirement of a susceptor in claims 10 or 11. Similarly, the Appellants make arguments relating to plies
of fiber between the susceptor and the composites of the weld. (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 3-5).
Likewise, this structure is not claimed in claims 10 or 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007