Ex Parte Fisher et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1881                                                        
          Application No. 09/623,681                                                  

          used to assemble an outer layer or skin of an aircraft to a                 
          skeletal framework.  A further understanding of the invention may           
          be derived from a reading of claim 1, the sole independent claim on         
          appeal, which reads as follows (with emphasis added):                       
               1.   A method of assembling a structure comprising at least            
          the steps of:                                                               
               providing a sub-structure,                                             
               positioning shim material on at least part of the sub-                 
          structure, said shim material comprising one of a film and sheet of         
          preformed shim material,                                                    
               curing the shim material disposed on the sub-structure,                
               machining the cured shim material to a desired thickness, and          
               assembling an outer layer with the sub-structure such that the         
          machined shim material lies substantially between the outer layer           
          and the sub-structure.                                                      
               As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relied upon the               
          following reference:                                                        
          Thomas et al. (Thomas)        3,609,116           Sep. 28, 1971             
               In addition, the examiner also relies on appellants’ admitted          
          prior art (AAPA) as set forth on pages 1-2 of the specification of          
          the present application.                                                    
               Claims 1-6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as         
          being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Thomas.                             


                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007