Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
rewelding would occur, and claim 10 would not be infringed. Additionally, if step (d)
analysis reveals a region of inadequate strength, and the region is repaired, cured, or
fixed in another manner other than rewelding, step (e) would not be met, and the claim
would not be infringed.
Turning now to the references cited, the Appellants state “Kodokian does not
suggest welding, evaluating welds, or rewelding to improve the strength of welds.
Kodokian does not teach connecting composites, inspecting connected composites, ...
or rewelding welds discovered to have inadequate strength.” (Appeal Brief, page 6,
lines 13-16). The Appellants further observe, “Clark neither welds not rewelds where
inadequate strength is discovered.” (Appeal Brief, Page 6, lines 19-20)
While we disagree with much of the Appellants’ characterization of Kodokian (as
discussed below), we do agree with the Appellants that neither Kodokian nor Clark
disclosed or taught the rewelding of bonds having inadequate strength. Rewelding is a
necessary element of the claim. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claim 10.
The Rejection over Kodokian in view of Clark further in view of Mittleider
However, Claim 10 is alternatively rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Kodokian in view of Clark and further in view of
Mittleider.
Turning now in more detail to the applied references, the Examiner notes that
Kodokian teaches the use of ferromagnetic susceptor particles embedded in a
thermoplastic adhesive to bond fiber reinforced thermoplastic laminates (Examiner’s
Answer, page 6, lines 3-5, citing Kodokian). Clark, it is said, teaches a nondestructive
method for evaluating composite materials and adhesive bonds wherein ferromagnetic
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007