Appeal No. 2006-0551 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/182,904
up of the laminated member and enclose the composite reinforcing member at a
position adjacent one surface of the completed laminated member.
Appellants argue that Westre does not teach the steps of "forming a composite
reinforcement member from a plurality of layers" and "positioning the composite
reinforcement member on a layer of the laminate member" (brief, pages 6-8). The basis
of this argument appears to be that Westre applies single layers to serve as the
reinforcement but gives no indication that more than one layer is supplied as a
composite reinforcement member (brief, page 7). This argument is not well taken, as
the examiner has specifically pointed out in the answer the plurality of layers (the three
plies of the second composite layer 15) that form the composite reinforcement member.
While fabrication of the hybrid layer illustrated in Figure 5 by either of Westre's
specifically enumerated methods would appear to include laying up the plies of
composite layer 15 one at a time, nothing in claim 1 distinguishes such formation and
positioning of the composite layer.
A two-part test has been established for determining if the steps of a method
claim that do not otherwise recite an order must nonetheless be performed in the order
in which they are written. We first look to the claim language itself to determine if, as a
matter of logic or grammar, the steps must be performed in the order written. If not, we
next look to the rest of appellants' specification to determine whether it directly or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007