Appeal No. 1997-2248
Application No. 08/378,513
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 9, and of claims 10 through 12 which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Bonnes in view of
Kipp or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 14,
and of claims 15 through 18 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Bonnes in view of Cooper and Flonc.
Lucas, the sole reference in the third rejection before
us, discloses a spanner comprising an integrally formed jaw
and
handle made of fiber-reinforced resin and a wear-resistant
liner
bonded to the gripping surface of the jaw. As to the method
of forming the spanner, Lucas explains that
[a] spanner of the invention may be built up,
layer by layer of reinforcing fibres in resin, in a
mould of the appropriate size and shape. The layers
may be formed successively in situ in the mould or
separately as sheets pre-impregnated with partly-
cured resin (‘prepreg sheets’) which are
subsequently stacked in the mould in the desired
sequence. After lay-up in the mould, the mould may
be closed and the resin cured using heat and
pressure in the conventional manner [page 1, lines
120 through 129].
As was the case above with Bonnes, Lucas fails to respond
to the various limitations in independent claims 9 and 14
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007