Appeal No. 2002-1214
Application No. 09/062,046
F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Appellants has not directed us
to evidence that the apparatus of Miller is not capable of “bonding of fiber elements
of a composite structure”.
In any event, assuming we interpret claim 38 as suggested by Appellants, the
language “for use in the bonding of fiber elements of a composite structure” alone
does not overcome the rejection under section 102. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, this claim language does not impart size and shape limitations on the
invention. The claim language does not specify that the composite structures are
large, small, planar or cylindrical.3 It appears that the “bonding of fiber elements of
a composite structure” is achieved by the application of pressure to the composite
structure by the upper and lower pressure members. The Examiner has found that
Miller has upper and lower pressure members that apply pressure to work elements.
Appellants have not argued that the upper and lower pressure members of Miller are
not capable of “bonding of fiber elements of a composite structure”.
3 Moreover, according to the specification, page 3, lines 13-15, “composite structures
are typically formed of ‘composite fiber elements’ or ‘fiber elements’ including carbon fiber
impregnated or coated with a curable bonding agent. By way of example and not limitation,
composite fibers may include elongated filaments of glass, graphite, boron, or polyarimid
(Kevlar™).” (underlining added). Accordingly, the specification does not limit the composite
structures to any special shape or size.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007