Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
Campbell and Sloman would have rendered the subject matter
defined by claims 27 and 28 obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. ' 103. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27 and 28 under
section 103(a).
REJECTION 6)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16 and 17 under section 103(a), the examiner
relies on the combined disclosures of Breuer6, Abildskov and
Campbell. The examiner finds (the Answer, page 15), and the
appellants do not dispute (the Brief, pages 18-19), that:
Breuer discloses a method of bonding a pre-form
(stiffening profile members 7) to a composite component
being infused with uncured resin (column 6, lines 18-
27), placing the base of the pre-form adjacent a
surface of a composite component that is infused with
an uncured resin (column 5, lines 22-40; column 6,
lines 65-67), then curing the resin in the pre-form and
the component (column 6, lines 65-67).
We find that Breuer exemplifies pre-forms, such as “L-sectional
profile members on a contact surface 71’ extending substantially
6 The examiner relies on U.S. Patent 6,306,239 B1 issued to Breuer et al. on
Oct. 23, 2001 as a substitute for the German Patent referred to in the
statement of rejection. The appellants have not challenged the examiner’s
reliance on the content of Breuer’s U.S. patent or the examiner’s assertion
relating to its English equivalency to Breuer’s German patent referred to in
the statement of rejection.
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007