Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
rejection of independent claim 1 and of nonargued dependent
claims 2-9 as being unpatentable over Johansen in view of the
admitted prior art and Green.
We also hereby sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection
of claim 10 over Johansen, the admitted prior art, Green and
Schetty or the British reference as well as the rejection of
claims 14-19 over Johansen in view of the admitted prior art as
well as the rejection of claim 20 over Johansen, the admitted
prior art and Schetty or the British reference. This is because
we agree with the examiner’s obviousness conclusions in these
rejections and because the arguments advanced by the appellants
in support of nonobviousness correspond to those found to be
unpersuasive for reasons expressed earlier.
Concerning the rejection based on the admitted prior art in
view of Nakasone or Johansen, the examiner’s obviousness position
is set forth on page 9 of the answer as follows:
The admitted prior art is silent as to including a
protective layer on the composite material prior to
crosslinking the resin of the composite material. However,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the
admitted prior art to include extruding a (removable or
permanent) thermoplastic protective layer onto the composite
layer prior to crosslinking the resin of the composite layer
as was well known in the art as shown for example by either
one of Nakasone et al. or Johansen et al. to protect the
composite layer during crosslinking and so that the resin of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007