Appeal No. 2000-1799
Application 09/211,473
impregnation of the resin into the fibrous reinforcement other
than conditions which require applied pressure (col. 7, lines 25-
29), we find that the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of the method
recited in the appellants’ claim 1. Consequently, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of this claim and claims 2
and 9-11 which depend therefrom. Because the examiner has not
explained how Seibold would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, using conditions to assure
substantially complete impregnation of the resin into the fibrous
reinforcement which do not include applied pressure, we reverse
the rejection of claims 8 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Seibold. Because the examiner has not explained how Honka and
Palmer remedy the above-discussed deficiency in Seibold, we
reverse the rejection of claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Prior art rejection of claims 12-14 and 58
The appellants do not argue the separate patentability of
claims 13, 14 and 58 which depend from independent claim 12.
Hence, we limit our discussion of the prior art rejection of
these claims to claim 12. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461 F.2d
1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA 1972); 37 CFR
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007