Appeal No. 2006-0551 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/182,904
member need be placed between the adjacent layers." We thus conclude that
appellants' specification, while conveying a criticality in providing a composite
reinforcement member which is placed between only two adjacent layers of the
laminated member, rather than being comprised of layers separated by layers of the
laminated member, does not expressly or implicitly require that the composite
reinforcement member be formed from a plurality of layers prior to being positioned on a
layer of the laminated member, rather than simultaneously with such positioning.
We additionally note that claim 1 does not require that the composite
reinforcement member be a unitary or integral member at the time that it is positioned
on a layer of the laminated member. Rather, the claim language is sufficiently broad to
encompass a method, such as that disclosed by Westre, wherein the composite
reinforcement member is positioned on a layer of the laminated member one layer, or
ply, at a time.
The appellants' remark in the sentence bridging pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
"the use of interleaved additional reinforcing layers will displace most of the skin
composite layers from being parallel with the skin wall thereby reducing their tensile
strength and increasing the possibility of delaminations" appears to be directed to
features of appellants' invention not set forth in the claims and, as such, is not relevant
to the issue of whether the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by Westre. It is well
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007