Appeal No. 2001-2533 Page 9
Application No. 09/372,988
layer. The same is true for all but one of the body sheets in Example 2, and that one is
equal to the modulus of the partial layer (column 8, line 62 et seq.). It is our view that
these teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
modulus of elasticity of the partial layer be lower than that of the body layer.
We view Okada merely to be confirmatory of the fact that it was known in the art
at the time of the appellant’s invention to alter the modulus of elasticity of the layers in
order to alter the flexural rigidity, which is recognized in the opening paragraphs of
Akatsuka.
We therefore conclude that the applied references establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 3, and we will sustain
the rejection.
In arriving at this conclusion, we have carefully considered the arguments
presented on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, but they have not persuaded us that the
decision made by the examiner was in error. In particular, as we explained above, the
applied prior art does disclose a partial layer having a modulus of elasticity lower than
that of the body layer.
(4)
Claim 4 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Akatsuka. This claim recites
a skew fiber body layer and a circumferential layer and establishes for them the same
ratios of impregnation of resins that were applied to the skew fiber layer and the thin
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007