Appeal No. 2002-1954
Application No. 09/458,926
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3 through 5, 7 through 16, 18
through 26, 28 and 29 as being unpatentable over Bohannan or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 17 and 27 as
being unpatentable over Bohannan in view of Baum.
As indicated above, independent claim 30 does not recite any
fiber angle ranges, but does require a specific two-part epoxy
resin. Conceding that Bohannan does not teach this specific
epoxy resin, the examiner nonetheless submits (see pages 2 and 3
in the final rejection) that “resins such as those claimed by the
applicant[s] are commonly known and would have been suitable for
Bohannan’s purpose. Absent some showing of unexpected results
the claimed resins are not considered to further distinguish
the claimed bat” (final rejection, pages 2 and 3). To the extent
that this amounts to a conclusion that it would have been obvious
to substitute the two-part epoxy resin specified in claim 30 for
the resin disclosed by Bohannan, it is completely lacking in
evidentiary support as argued by the appellants (see page 8 in
the brief).
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 30, and dependent claims
31 through 34 and 36, as being unpatentable over Bohannan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007