Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
lines 30-035, column 9, lines 14-33).
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s Official Notice or
finding. See the Brief, pages 19-20.
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 specific structure suggested by of
Breuer, Abildskov, Campbell, Childress and Boyce, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining an improved
curing and bonding.
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated supra and in the
Answer, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and
27 under section 103(a).
REJECTION 9)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 10, 27 and 28, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Breuer, Abildskov, Campbell, Childress and/or
47
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007