Appeal No. 2000-1646
Application 08/467,425
Since claim interpretation normally controls the remainder of the decisional
process, our analysis will begin with the key legal question – what is the invention
claimed? Cf. Panduit Corp. V. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1
USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claim 10 recites a method for improving a thermoplastic weld between
prefabricated fiber-reinforced structures by alleviating residual strain by adding woven
fiberglass fiber reinforcement to the weld, the fiberglass extending substantially the
width of the weld and being independent from the fiber in the composites. Claim 11 is
a product formed by the process of claim 10.
We will sustain this rejection as we find that Nakamura and Murray rendered
these claims to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. We agree with the Examiner’s observations in this regard and add
the following for emphasis.
The Appellants’ attention is directed to Figures 1 and 2, and the associated
description on page 6 of Nakamura. Pre-fabricated fiber reinforcing structures 10, 11
are joined by a weld suitable for use in aerospace structural materials (page 5, line 30).
Between the joint and extending thereacross is an induction heat generating body 1
containing reinforcing fibers (2), which can be a woven fabric (page 5, line 11). The
fiber and resin selected for use in the heat generating body are to be the same as those
selected for the structures to be joined to result in a similar structure for similar
properties (page 4, lines 10-20). Murray in a like manner teaches the interwoven nature
of the fibers (column 5, lines 50-52), and discloses glass is a well-known reinforcing
fiber for commercial composite articles (column 4, lines 35-41). We therefore agree
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007