Appeal No. 2002-0963
Application No. 08/122,344
(9) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sherwood in view of Boss, and further in view
of McClean.
(10) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sherwood in view of Boss, and further in view
of Klein or Lemelson.
(11) Claims 10, 11, 18 and 22 through 28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwood in view of
Boss, and further in view of Forbes.
Grouping of claims
In their brief, appellants have included a statement that
the claims of groups (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (11) do not
stand or fall together and have explained why claims of each
group are believed to be separately patentable. See Brief,
pp. 8-9. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the claims
stand or fall together as set forth on pages 8 through 9 of
appellants’ brief. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2000).
Discussion
Claim 1 is directed to a method of producing substantially
cured fiber reinforced lamination in situ while laying up at
least one thermoset resin impregnated fiber tow or tape on a
mandrel comprising:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007