Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
2) the desirability of using those same types of ferromagnetic particles to
acoustically and nondestructively analyze a composite joint for strength
and completeness of binding (Clark, e.g. column 2, lines 47-50); and
3) the desirability of inductively rewelding thermoplastically welded areas
lacking sufficient strength (Mittleider, e.g. column 19, lines 35-56 and
column 21, lines 28-45).
The Examiner has additionally pointed out that one of ordinary skill in the art
knows to weld thermoplastic composite parts, nondestructively evaluate the parts, and
reweld if unbonded regions are found. The Appellants have not disputed this.
Determination of whether a new combination of known elements would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill depends on various facts, including whether the
elements exist in "analogous art", that is, art that is reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which the inventor is concerned. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ
313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When the references are all in the same or analogous fields,
knowledge thereof by the hypothetical person of ordinary skill is presumed, In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and the test is whether
the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed
invention. See Young, 927 F.2d at 591, 18 USPQ2d at 1091.
We find that 1) the art is analogous and 2) the problem being solved, to wit, the
provision of high strength bonds for composite reinforced parts, is the same in all three
references. Each of these references was within the general knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art of fabricating composite structures at the time the invention was
made. While the Appellants have focused on the differences in each of the references,
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007