Appeal No. 95-0429
Application No. 07/730,199
parallel reinforcing and thermoplastic matrix fibers wrapped
in a continuous filament of thermoplastic material.
In rejecting the appealed claims over the above
references, the examiner essentially ignored the process
limitations recited in claim 1. Specifically, the examiner
has not indicated whether the claimed structural arrangement
relating to parallel discontinuous reinforcing and
thermoplastic matrix fibers is taught by or would have
suggested by the above references. Thus, we agree with
appellants that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness regarding the subject matter defined by
claims 1 through 6 and 8.2
As a final point, we note that the scope of claim 1 is
identical to that of claim 8 for the reasons indicated supra.
At hearing on December 10, 1997, appellants’ representative
also agrees with us that both claims 1 and 8 are identical.
Thus,
2Since the examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, we need not consider the sufficiency of
the alleged unexpected results.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007