Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16 and 17 under
section 103(a).
REJECTION 7)
As evidence o obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 3, 7 through 9 and 15 under section 103(a), the examiner
relies on the combined disclosures of Breuer, Abildskov, Campbell
and at least Childress and/or Boyce. The disclosures of Breuer,
Abildskov and Campbell are discussed above. The examiner appears
to recognize that Breuer, Abildskov and Campbell do not mention
inserting Z-pins between two legs of the pi-shape pre-form
suggested by Breuer and Abildskov. See the Answer, pages 17-18.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner refers to the
teachings of Childress and/or Boyce. The examiner finds (Answer,
page 18), and the appellants do not dispute (the Brief, page 19),
that Childress and/or Boyce:
Show[s] that it is known in the art of applying Z-
pins for joining composite materials [inclusive of the
woven pi-shape pre-form suggested by Breuer and
Abildskov], [and] it is known to provide the Z-pins
along all the surfaces that touch along the bond line
[inclusive of the base portion between the two legs of
the pi-shape pre-form suggested by Breuer and
Abildskov]. As to the limitation that the pins are
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007