Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
Thus, for the reasons indicated above and in the Answer, we
concur with the examiner that the applied prior art references as
a whole would have rendered the subject mater defined by claims
10, 27 and 28 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 10, 27 and 28 under section
103(a).
REJECTION 10)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 11 and 12 under section 103(a), the examiner relies on the
combined disclosures of Breuer, Abildskov, Campbell, Childress
and/or Boyce, and Hertzberg. The disclosures of Breuer,
Abildskov, Campbell, Childress and Boyce are discussed above.
The examiner appears to acknowledge that these references do not
mention the use of adhesives between the pre-form base and
composite layer. See the Answer, page 22.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner finds (the Answer,
page 22), and the appellants do not dispute (the Brief, page 21),
that:
Breuer only discloses curing the resin in the parts to
provide the bonding between the pre-form and the two components.
Hertzberg discloses it is known in the art to provide an adhesive
between parts of structural assemblies in order to prevent
delamination and provide a stronger bond than the prior art
methods of only utilizing the un-cured resin in the parts for
bonding when cured (column 1, lines 19-16; column 3, lines 25-
31). Hertzberg further discloses that the adhesive is placed
between the joined surfaces of the parts of the structural
assembly and then the structural assembly is cured (column 2,
lines 55-68; column 4, line 47 to column 5, line 8; column 9,
line 41).
Given the above uncontradicted findings, we concur with the
50
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007