Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
obtaining a more secure bonding.
The appellants argue that “[n]either Campbell et al. nor
Alston et al. teach the use of a woven perform through which
Z-pins are inserted.” See the Brief, page 15. In so arguing,
the appellants again fail to consider the applied prior art
references as a whole as required by section 103(a). Young, 927
F.2d at 591, 18 USPQ2d at 1091; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ
at 881. That is, the obviousness test is not what the prior art
references individually teach, but what their combined teachings
would have fairly suggested to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Id. Here, as indicated supra, Wanthal teaches using Z-
pins to bond a woven pre-form to a composite layer in aircraft
construction. Both Campbell and Alston teach improving the
bonding of aircraft parts by appropriately using the Z-pins.
Thus, for the reasons indicated above and in the Answer, we
concur with the examiner that the prior art references as a whole
would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 18
through 21 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.5
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 18 through 21 under section 103(a).
5 The appellants argue that McKague, Jr. is not available as “prior art”
under section 102(e). See the Brief, page 15. However, the examiner no
longer relies McKague, Jr. in the rejections set forth in the Answer. See the
Answer, pages 11 and 12. Thus, this argument is moot.
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007