Ex Parte Metcalf et al - Page 2


                  Appeal No. 2006-1792                                                                                                                    
                  Application 10/329,665                                                                                                                  

                           The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                                  
                  Whelan     3,663,496    May 16, 1972                                                                                                    
                  Duryea      4,820,576    Apr. 11, 1989                                                                                                  
                  Russell      4,959,110    Sep. 25, 1990                                                                                                 
                  Brownell et al. (Brownell)   WO 94/25267    Nov. 10, 1994                                                                               
                           (published World Intellectual Property Organization Application)                                                               
                  Yasuma     08-134327 A    May 28, 1996                                                                                                  
                           (published unexamined Japanese patent application)                                                                             
                  Nanaumi     10-330583 A    Dec. 15, 1998                                                                                                
                           (published unexamined Japanese patent application)                                                                             
                  Phyllis A. Lyday (Lyday), “Boron,” Mineral Yearbook, USGS, pp. 1-11 (1995).                                                             
                           The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.                                         
                  § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in the written description in the                                            
                  specification ([0020] through [0025]) in view of Whelan, Russell, Lyday and any one of                                                  
                  Brownell, Duryea, Nanaumi or Yasuma (answer, pages 3-10).                                                                               
                           Appellants argue claim 1 with respect to the grouping of claims 1 through 3, 5 through                                         
                  14, 16 through 32, 34 and 35, and claim 15 with respect to the grouping of claims 15 and 33                                             
                  (brief, pages 7 and 14).  Accordingly, we decide this appeal based on these claims 1 and 15.                                            
                  37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).                                                                                             
                           We affirm.                                                                                                                     
                           We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the                                       
                  positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.                                                                                      
                                                                        Opinion                                                                           
                           We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                                       
                  agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed                                           
                  method of insulating a structure of a rocket motor encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 15                                              
                  would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the admitted prior art, Whelan,                                                  
                  Russell, Lyday, Brownell, Duryea, Nanaumi and Yasuma to one of ordinary skill in this art at the                                        
                  time the claimed invention was made.  Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has                                          
                  been established by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and                                              
                  nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of                                                


                                                                          - 2 -                                                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007