Appeal No. 1997-1448
Application 08/097,140
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record
before us, the examiner relies upon a single reference to Letterman to reject the
claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic
premise of the rejection is that while Letterman does not teach preimpregnating the
claimed preform, the portion of the reference entitled BACKGROUND OF THE
INVENTION discloses that it is well known to preimpregnate fibrous preforms. See
the Office action mailed June 27, 1994, page 3. Presumably, according to the
examiner, it would have been obvious to impregnate the preform of Letterman to obtain
appellants’ claimed subject matter.
Our analysis is not in accord with that of the examiner. We find that Letterman
distinguishes over the prior art by preparing a plurality of dry fiber plies layered to
create a dry preform. See column 2, lines 35-36. At least one layer of a resin is
added to the dry preform. See column 2, lines 40-41. In addition, to a layer of a
resin located atop the dry preform, a layer may be located beneath the dry preform.
See column 2, lines 47-49. However, Letterman defines the term “dry preform” as
one not impregnated
with a resin. See column 3, lines 29-30. Based on our findings, we conclude that
Letterman teaches a curable resin composite containing a multi-ply fabric layer which
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007