Appeal No. 2000-1646
Application 08/467,425
Claims 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nakamura in view of Murray.
DISCUSSION
The Invention
The Appellants’ invention relates generally to a method and product that uses a
structural susceptor to include fiber reinforcement within the weld resin in a
thermoplastic weld-joining composite. The reinforcement is said to alleviate residual
tensile strain and suppress cracking present in an otherwise unreinforced weld. The
Appellants state that the susceptor is the claimed subject matter of U.S. Patent
5,717,191. (Appeal Brief, page 2, lines 16-20).
Procedural Issues
Initially, we note that the Appellants have stated in the Main Brief (page 6, lines
14-16) that the claims stand separately. As the Appellants have argued only the
rejection of claims 10 and 11 separately, we will consider that rejection separately. See
37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(1997).
The Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, and 19-20 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20
of Christensen. The Examiner has concluded that although the claims are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other. The Examiner bases this upon his
finding that both sets of claims teach a structural susceptor comprising a susceptor
encased in a thermoplastic resin wherein the susceptor may comprise a metal material,
and wherein the thermoplastic resin may be reinforced with fibers and wherein the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007