Appeal No. 2002-0038 Page 5
Application No. 09/090,256
argued that Honka does not disclose maintaining the pressure
below either of such claimed pressure limits during the curing of
a pre-preg to form a composite article. On the other hand, the
examiner makes reference to a vacuum bag that is used in the
molding method of Honka and the example at columns 3 and 4 of the
reference. Based on that disclosure and the examiner’s
determination that the teachings in Honka are not limited to
using an autoclave at 200 psig pressure for curing, as in the
Example, the examiner asserts that Honka represents an
anticipatory disclosure of the subject matter called for in the
claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In so doing, the examiner
refers to column 1,, lines 57-68; column 2, lines 29-68 and
column 3, lines 1-14 of Honka. See pages 4, 5 and 9 of the
answer.
However, the examiner has not pointed out, nor can we find,
where a disclosure of an uppermost curing pressure that meets
appellants’ claimed limitations is located in Honka. In this
regard, while we agree with the examiner that Honka does not
limit the disclosed method to using an autoclave for curing at a
200 psig pressure, it is the examiner’s burden to establish that
Honka necessarily describes a method that appellants’ rejected
claims would read on. This, the examiner has not done. As
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007