Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
of expectation of successfully reinforcing the bonding of the
pre-form to the composite layer.
The appellants’ main argument is that Campbell “shows
Z-pins, but only in connection with a laminate, not a woven
preform” and “does not suggest that the pins between legs would
be parallel to the pins outside of the legs required by claim 3.”
See the Brief, page 14. This argument is not well-taken. It
ignores Wanthal’s teaching of using Z-pins to bond its woven pre-
forms and composite layers, Campbell’s teaching of using parallel
Z-pins to reinforce the bonding in general and the examiner’s
Official Notice regarding the employment of parallel reinforcing
pins along the bond-line (such as that taught by Childress and/or
Boyce) to improve the bonding. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
91, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, for the reasons indicated supra and in the Answer, we
determine that the prior art references as a whole would have
suggested the claimed subject matter within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 3 under section 103(a).
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007