Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
Thus, for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we
are not convinced that the combined teachings of the applied
prior art references would not 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 27 under section
103(a).
REJECTION 5)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 27 and 28 under section 103(a), the examiner relies on the
combined disclosures of Wanthal, Campbell and Sloman. The
disclosures of Wanthal and Campbell are discussed above. The
examiner appears to acknowledge that Wanthal and Campbell do not
mention using the claimed over-presses in the structure of the
type described in Wanthal. See the Answer, pages 13-14.
To account for the claimed over-presses, the examiner takes
official notice and makes factual findings relating to Sloman as
provided below (the Answer, page 14):
It is well known in the art when curing structural
laminates to provide over-presses that are at least
semi-rigid against the outer surfaces of the pre-form
in order to distribute force across the outer surfaces
of the pre-form. For example, Sloman discloses a
method of curing a structural member by providing an at
least semi-rigid over-press against the outer surface
of a pre-form in order to cause the over-press to press
the pre-form against the other structural assembly
parts (pages 1,3) . . .
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s official notice or
factual findings relating to Sloman. See the Brief, pages 16-17.
Thus, given the above circumstances, we concur with the
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007