Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
Claims 13, 14 and 18-21 deal with overwrap plies.
While a number of references show overwrap plies, none
of the references cited ... shows the features claimed
in parent claim 7.
Thus, for the reasons indicated supra and in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established, by preponderance of
evidence, a prima facie case of obviousness, which has not been
rebutted by the appellants. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13, 14 and 18 through 21
under section 103(a).
REJECTIONS 12) and 13)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 22, 25 and 26 under section 103(a), the examiner relies on
the combined disclosures of Breuer, Abildskov, Campbell,
Hertzberg and either Barnes or Sloman. The collective teachings
of Breuer Abildskov, Campbell and Hertzberg are discussed above.
The examiner appears to acknowledge that these references do not
mention using over-presses during curing as required by claims
22, 25 and 26. See the Answer, pages 24-26.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner takes Official
Notice at pages 24 and 25 of the Answer that:
[I]t is well known in the art when curing
Z-pins prior to co-curing the skins and pre-forms. See page 7.
54
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007