Appeal No. 2002-0038 Page 6
Application No. 09/090,256
developed in appellants’ briefs, the mere mention of use of a
vacuum bag does not equate with a teaching of an upper limit for
the curing pressure. Indeed, Honka employed a vacuum bag and
vacuum pressure in the Example described at columns 3 and 4 but
also increased the pressure to 200 psig for curing in that
example. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 102
rejection on this record.
Moreover, the examiner has not fairly explained how any of
the other applied references3 together with Honka would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to restrict the curing pressure
in forming the composite to a value within that called for in the
appealed claims with a reasonable expectation of success in so
doing as argued by appellants in the briefs. Consequently, we
will not sustain any of the examiner’s § 103 rejections on this
record.
3 We are mindful that the examiner and appellants have noted
that Borgmeier discloses a cure pressure of 100 psi. See page 8
of the answer and pages 17 and 18 of the brief with respect to
the application of that reference to claims 27, 29, 31 and 33-36.
However, the examiner has not advanced any persuasive reasoning
explaining how the combined teachings of Honka and Borgmeier with
or without Weitsman would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to appellants’ curing pressure limits, as specified in the so
rejected claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007