Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s official notice or
finding. See the Brief, page 16.
Thus, we concur with the examiner that the applied prior art
references as a whole would have rendered the claimed subject
matter prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of section 103(a). From our perspective, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ over-
presses in an appropriate manner for a given structure, including
the claimed manner for the structure taught by Wanthal, to obtain
improved curing and bonding.
The appellants’ principal argument is that neither Campbell
nor Barnes teaches the claimed woven pre-form. See the Brief,
page 16. In so arguing, the appellants again ignore the combined
teachings of the applied prior art references as a whole. Young,
927 F.2d at 591, 18 USPQ2d at 1091; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208
USPQ at 881. As indicated supra, the appellants do not dispute
the examiner’s finding that Wanthal teaches employing Z-pins and
curing a resin to bond the claimed woven pi-shape pre-form to a
laminate skin (pre-preg tape) for stiffening purposes, with
Campbell’s reference to improving the bonding of aircraft
structures in general via appropriate use of Z-pins.
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007