Appeal No. 2002-0038 Page 4
Application No. 09/090,256
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Honka in view of Weitsman and Borgmeier.
We refer to appellants’ briefs and to the examiner's answer
for an exposition of the respective viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the rejections.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner with
respect to the rejections that remain before us for review, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants since the examiner
has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case
of anticipation or obviousness. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's stated rejections on this record.
Regarding the examiner’s § 102 rejection, the method claims
so rejected require that the pressure at which a pre-preg2 is
cured while forming a composite article is maintained at no more
than about 50 psig (independent claim 6) or no more than
atmospheric pressure (independent claim 17). Appellants have
2 As set forth at page 1 of appellants’ specification,
composite starting materials for rocket motor nozzle components
are referred to as pre-pregs. The “[p]re-preg materials
generally include fabric and/or fiber that has/have been pre-
impregnated with resin, typically a phenolic resin”
(specification, page 1, lines 18-20).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007