Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
rejected over this prior art and further in view of Schetty
or the British reference;
Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected over the admitted
prior art in view of Nakasone or Johansen, while claims 10
and 20 are correspondingly rejected over this prior art and
further in view of Schetty or the British reference.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We agree with the findings of fact, conclusions of law and
rebuttals to argument expressed by the examiner in the answer.
Accordingly, we hereby adopt these findings, conclusions and
rebuttals as our own. We add the following comments for
emphasis.
Concerning the rejection of claims 1-9 over Johansen, the
admitted prior art and Green, the examiner expresses his basic
position on pages 5-6 of the answer as follows:
Johansen et al., while teaching that the reinforcing
fibers are wound and the crosslinkable resin [i.e.,
adhesive] is placed between the composite core and
reinforcing fibers, are silent as to winding reinforcing
fibers impregnated with the crosslinkable resin. It would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007