Appeal No. 2001-0096
Application 09/301,891
According to the Final Rejection, Pannell’s claims include every element of
appealed claim 13, excluding the “(1) that each composite element is a laminate having
a plurality of plies, each ply having fiber reinforcement defining an X-Y plane, and (2) an
areal density in the range from 0.5 – 2.0% in the bond line” (Final Rejection, Paper No.
5, page 2, paragraph 2, lines 4-6). Appellant has not contested this statement.
The Final Rejection relies on Alston, column 5, lines 63-64 to state that
“composites formed from laminates having a plurality of plies, each ply having fiber
reinforcement defining an X-Y plane are conventional” (Final Rejection, Paper No. 5,
page 2, paragraph 2, lines 6 -8).
The Appellant disputes this characterization of Alston, stating “Alston does not
have two elements, each of which includes a plurality of plies” (Reply Brief, page 5,
lines 12-13).
Further, the Final Rejection relies on Alston, column 3, lines 29-30 to state that “it
would have been obvious to provide the specified areal density as this is a preferred
areal density for Z-pins” (Final Rejection, Paper No. 5, page 2, paragraph 2, line 8 –
page 3, line 2).
The Appellant only disputes the Examiner’s usage of the disclosure of Alston,
which we have previously addressed, and not the substance of this characterization.
Our analysis begins with the cited art. We note initially that the cited art is in the
same field of endeavor as the present application, and the disclosed and resultant
structures of the cited art are similar. Thus, we see no issues with this combination of
references.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007