Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
These statements contain several inaccuracies.
Kodokian is relied upon by the Examiner to teach the use of ferromagnetic
susceptor particles to bond fiber reinforced thermoplastic laminates. Such use is clearly
disclosed at column 2, line 2 “bonding operations”; column 5, lines 33-62 (the entire
laminate bonding operation of Example II); and in column 6 line 27 - column 7 line
7)(the bonding operations of Examples III and IV). While it may be literally true that the
word “weld” is not used, it is clear that the bonding process accomplishes a weld by the
temperatures involved. Kodokian, also contrary to the Appellants’ assertion, teaches
the connection of composites in its Examples.
To the extent that Kodokian does not teach inspection or rewelding, the
argument of the Appellants misses the point. The Kodokian reference is not relied upon
for the teaching of inspection or rewelding. It is the Clark reference, which teaches
inspection using “tagged particles.” The Appellants sidestep the disclosure in Clark
that the “tagged particles” are ferromagnetic (see, e.g. Clark, column 3, lines 55 – 56),
as are several of the disclosed Kodokian susceptor materials (Kodokian, Table II,
especially columns 5-6).
The Appellants state that Clark discloses a method of qualitatively and
nondestructively evaluating adhesive joints and locating areas of inadequate strength
(Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 17-21). However, the Appellants argue that Clark neither
welds nor rewelds where inadequate strength is found and does not teach how to repair
inadequate strength and that “[n]either reference inputs an electromagnetic pulse into
the welded composite to excite the buried susceptor and then listens to the acoustic
signal created by the excited susceptor” (Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 22-24).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007