Appeal No. 1999-2601
Application 08/862,682
teaching that the various experimental results reported therein
stem from the same entrance tension belies the examiner’s
position.
The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness also suffers from a
lack of factual support for the determination (see page 27 in the
answer) that Azari, and by implication Glemet, respond to the
limitations in claims 5 and 7 requiring a feed opening for the
melt which is not in contact with the filaments.
The foregoing flaws in the examiner’s evidentiary showing
find no cure in the further application of Goldmann or Marttila
for their disclosures of specific filament diameters, Hilakos for
its disclosure of a heated spreader surface, Dyksterhouse for its
disclosure of the shear-thinning of high viscosity melts, and
Montsinger for its disclosure of filament spreading prior to
impregnation.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 5 and 7, and dependent claims 2, 6 and
8 through 12, as being unpatentable over Azari in view of either
Goldmann or Marttila, and further in view of Hilakos, Bates and
Dyksterhouse, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5
and 7, and dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12, as being
unpatentable over Glemet in view of either Goldmann or Marttila,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007