Appeal No. 2004-0052
Application No. 09/180,432
Appellants argue that there is no indication in McCullough
that there is a need for increased strength, which was given by the
examiner as the motivation for combining McCullough and Otani
(Brief, page 13). Appellants also argue that there is no teaching
in either reference to indicate that such a substitution would
result in increased strength in the panel member of McCullough
(id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not well taken since McCullough
specifically discloses the desire for anisotropic character of both
fibers and the binder phase to achieve improved strength, with the
fiber contributing the major portion of this strength (col. 1, ll.
32-36). In view of the similar teachings in Otani that pitches of
anisotropic nature used as precursors for carbon fibers have a
strength and modulus much higher than isotropic pitch-based carbon
fibers (col. 1, ll. 19-28), we determine that one of ordinary skill
in this art would have been motivated to use anisotropic pitch-
based carbon fibers in the composite of McCullough. As taught by
McCullough, the fiber contributes the major portion of the strength
of the composite (col. 1, ll. 35-36), and thus substitution of the
higher strength anisotropic pitch-based carbon fiber of Otani in
the composite of McCullough would have been expected to increase
the strength of the composite.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007