Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
claims 15 and 16, we subscribe to the following rationale set
forth by the examiner:
The arguments in reference to "increasing the
outer sheet thickness in the region of fastener
attachments to react bearing loads and provide
stiffness for bending" is not persuasive because
clearly the other references provide a sheet with
thickness "increased" enough to provide the desired
strength. Applicant even fails in the claim language
to specify that only the area proximate the fasteners
are [sic, is] increased, so a panel of uniform
thickness that provides sufficient strength reads over
[sic, on] the claim language [paragraph bridging pages
5 and 6 of Answer].
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 9-12
under § 103 over the admitted prior art or Torkelson in view of
Morse. The central issue here is the obviousness of replacing
the fastening means of the admitted prior art and Torkelson,
thru-bolted fasteners, with the presently claimed blind
fasteners. Morse evidences that it was known in the art to
employ blind fasteners, or bolts, to attach acoustic panels to a
structure. In our view, although Morse does not disclose using
the blind bolts to attach acoustic panels to an aircraft
structure, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based
on the collective teachings of the admitted prior art, Torkelson
and Morse, to use the blind bolts of Morse as an alternative to
the thru-bolts of the admitted prior art and Torkelson.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007