Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
parallel to each other, all the references show that
the Z-pins going through base portions of pre-forms are
parallel to each other.
Given the above uncontradicted teachings, we concur with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to employ the parallel reinforcing Z-pins suggested by
Campbell, Childress and/or Boyce on along the bond-line of a
structure, inclusive of the base portion between the two legs of
the pi-shape pre-form suggested by Breuer and Abildskov,
motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully reinforcing
the bonding of the perform to the composite layer. The appellants
again argue that the prior art references individually do not
teach all of the claimed limitations. See the Brief, page 19.
This argument again ignores the proper obviousness test within
the meaning of section 103(a) as explained above.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we concur
with the examiner that the applied prior art references as a
whole would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 3,
7 through 9 and 15 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 7 through 9 and 15
under section 103(a).
45
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007