Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
ferromagnetic particle analysis method of Clark to analyze the bond of Kodokian, which
is a thermoplastic bonding process.
The Appellants have not shown or argued that such a combination would not be
expected to work, other than to say there is no indication that Clark’s particles can heat.
As the Examiner has noted, the particles of both Clark and Kodokian are finely divided
ferromagnetic particles, and it is reasonable to assume that they can heat. Thus, we find
one of skill in the art making this combination would have a reasonable expectation of
success.
The Appellants state at page 7 lines 18-19 that “If Clark uses pulses, those
pulses do not travel through the weld to excite a buried metal mesh susceptor in the
weld and to cause it to vibrate to generate an acoustic signal”. We are not sure what
relevance this statement has to the points presently in issue. First, the instant claims do
not require the presence of a “buried metal mesh susceptor”, they merely require a
susceptor to be positioned along the bond line. Second, Clark is not relied upon for
illustrating welding, merely the method of analysis. Thirdly, it seems clear from an
analysis of Clark, especially figure 2D, that pulses are used.
Continuing to attack the references individually, the Appellants state that
Mittleider teaches a multi-pass welding process to avoid overheating of the bond line
including rewelding to improve quality, but that electro-acoustic analysis of the weld is
not performed. Instead, they argue, Mittleider uses ultrasonic inspection. Finally, the
Appellants state baldly that “[c]ombining three references always requires inventive skill
or suggests hindsight reconstruction of the invention” (Appeal Brief, page 7, final
paragraph).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007