Appeal No. 2004-1881
Application No. 09/623,681
handling thereof and to simplify location of the shim
material to the sub-structure. [Answer, paragraph
spanning pages 4-5.]
Implicit in the examiner’s position is that the method of AAPA
modified in the manner set forth above would result in the subject
matter of appealed claim 1.
While we recognize that the method of AAPA discloses the
claimed method with the exception of the use of a preformed shim
material, and that Thomas discloses a method of assembly that
utilizes shim material applied either in a fluid state (column 2,
lines 45-59) or as a preform (column 7, lines 36-38), we are unable
to agree with the examiner that the combined teachings of AAPA and
Thomas would have suggested modifying AAPA’s method in a way that
would have resulted in the method of claim 1. In this regard, it
appears to us that the examiner has not considered the teachings of
Thomas in its entirety, but instead has chosen to consider only
those teachings of Thomas that support the examiner’s determination
of obviousness. More particularly, we view Thomas as teaching that
when a preformed shim material is to be used in the assembly of
components, the outer layer should be assembled to the sub-
structure and pre-applied shim material before the shim material is
cured. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007