Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to employ an adhesive in the structure suggested by Breuer,
Abildskov, Campbell and Childress and/or Boyce in the manner
discussed above, motivated by a reasonable expectation of
successfully providing a stronger bonding between the pre-form
base and the composite layer.
The appellants argue (the Brief, page 21) that:
Claim 11 depends from claim 7, thus should be allowed.
Moreover, claims 11 and 12 deal with the use of an
adhesive located between woven preform and a first
component and between the woven preform and the second
component. Hertzberg does not disclose any woven
performs…
This argument again fails to take into account the collective
teachings of the applied prior art references. When, as here,
the teachings of the applied prior art references are considered
collectively, we determine that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons indicated supra.
The appellants proffer no sufficient evidence or arguments to
rebut the prima facie case.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we
determine that the evidence of obviousness, on balance, outweighs
the evidence of nonobviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11 and 12 under section
51
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007