Appeal No. 2002-0963
Application No. 08/122,344
decision set forth a new rationale based on only two of the four
references cited in the final rejection, we denominated the
affirmance a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Appellants amended claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 21, and the
application was remanded to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b). This appeal involves amended claims 1 through 11 and
14 through 21 as well as newly added claims 22 through 32.
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of producing
substantially cured fiber reinforced lamination in situ. Claim 1
is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method of producing substantially cured fiber
reinforced lamination in situ while laying up at least one
thermoset resin impregnated fiber tow or tape on a mandrel,
comprising:
passing the at least one thermoset resin impregnated fiber tow or
tape through a preheating zone of a fiber placement apparatus to
preheat the thermoset resin impregnated fiber tow or tape to a
predetermined temperature based on the particular thermoset resin
so as to partially advance curing of the thermoset resin; and
laying up on the mandrel the at least one fiber tow or tape
impregnated with the thermoset resin in a preheated state and
exhibiting a partially advanced cure while simultaneously
advancing the curing of the thermoset resin to substantial
completion of greater than 60% crosslink density by:
supplying heat to an area of the mandrel proximate a location of
application thereto of the at least one thermoset resin
impregnated fiber tow or tape;
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007