Appeal No. 96-2827
Application No. 08/138,300
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded for essentially the reasons expressed by appellants in
their Brief, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejections.
In the first rejection, the primary reference to Gardner
discloses a composition containing both thermoplastic polymer
and a structural fiber. See column 2, lines 3-9. Moreover,
the thermoplastic polymer is exemplified by a thermoplastic
hydroxy phenoxy ether. See column 9, lines 35-67 and column
12, lines 14-22. However, the claimed subject matter requires
that the composite be “thermoplastic.” In contrast, we find
the composite of Gardner thermosetting. Two required
components of Gardner’s invention are an epoxy resin and a
hardener. The interaction of the epoxy resin and hardener
necessarily results in a thermosetting resin matrix. See
Example 14 wherein phenoxy resin is present and the
composition is thermosetting. Furthermore, Examples 6-25
among others are thermosetting or cured. In this respect, we
agree with appellants statement in the Brief that the,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007