Appeal No. 1998-1822 Page 6
Application No. 08/627,213
argued by appellants in their brief (pages 9 and 10), neither
Pratt nor Harrier, alone or in combination, suggests the
drilling of a partially cured panel or sheet in combination
with the other claimed method steps in forming a perforated
article, as herein claimed. The examiner recognizes that
Pratt does not disclose such a drilling step (answer, page 5,
first sentence). Harrier (column 1, lines 28-36) discloses a
prior art method of drilling a sheet after curing. As
recognized by the examiner (answer, page 12) however, Harrier
does not disclose drilling a partially cured sheet or panel as
herein claimed. Rather, Harrier (column 1, line 59 through
column 2, line 54) teaches that pointed studs are used to form
perforations in a partially cured sheet, not a drilling step.
Hence, even if the teachings of Pratt and Harrier were
combined, the examiner has not established, by the reference
evidence relied upon, how the herein claimed process including
drilling of a partially cured sheet would have been suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nor, with regard to
claims 3 and 4, has the examiner convincingly explained how
Savigny would have cured the above-noted deficiency in the
teachings of Pratt and Harrier.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007