Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
SUMMARY OF DECISION\
On consideration of the entire record, we reverse the §103 rejection over
Kodokian in view of Clark and affirm the §103 rejection over Kodokian in view of Clark
and Mittleider.
DISCUSSION
The Invention
The Appellants’ invention relates to a method for forming a thermoplastic weld
between fiber reinforced composite laminates by heating the bond line using a
susceptor, then nondestructively evaluating the weld using acoustic signals generated
by electromagnetic pulse absorption by the susceptor, and rewelding in those areas
found to have inadequate strength.
The Rejection over Kodokian in view of Clark
Claim 10 is rejected under 3 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kodokian in view of Clark. For this rejection, the Examiner notes that claim 10 does not
require rewelding if no defects are observed in the weld (Examiner’s Answer, page 5,
line 16 – page 6, line 1). The Appellants, on the other hand, state that the claimed
process requires rewelding “[a]lthough the Examiner tries to ignore it” (Appeal Brief,
page 6, line 9).
Federal Circuit precedent has provided guidance with respect to claim
construction when reviewing claims on appeal. See, e.g. Burlington Industries v. Quigg,
822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims undergoing
examination are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007