Appeal No. 2001-0096
Application 09/301,891
After close scrutiny of both the Main Brief and Reply Brief, we are unable to find
the separate arguments for each claim to which Appellant refers. Therefore, we note
that the claims stand or fall together.
The Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to improving the strength of composite structures of
laminate materials by using precured Z-pinned strips for cocured, bonded, or welded
composite structures. The pending claims are directed to a bonded composite
structure.
The Rejection
The Examiner has finally rejected claims 13 through 17 as unpatentable over
claims 1-9 of Pannell in view of Alston under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting (Paper No. 5, page 2, paragraph 2).
Preliminary Discussion
As several arguments are raised throughout the briefs that require discussion
before we reach the merits of the rejection, we address those arguments first.
Appellant initially argues that the instant claims are not subject to obviousness-
type double patenting, stating that the claims of Pannell are presented in product by
process format and are therefore separate and distinct from the structure claims of the
pending application. (Main Brief, page 4, lines 12 – 17). Appellant further argues that
the Pannell claims and the present claims would have been subject to a restriction
requirement if presented in the same application and that the claims of the present
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007