Appeal No. 2006-0772
Application No. 09/731,945
process finds utility in making products for a wide variety of
industries, including aerospace.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
(a) claims 1 and 6-8 over Johnson in view of White, EP '438,
Shepherd and McClure;
(b) claims 4, 5 and 10 in view of the combination of
references stated in (a) above further in view of Imanara;
(c) claim 11 over the combination of references stated in
(a) above further in view of Stoeberl; and
(d) claim 12 over Johnson in view of Stoeberl.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We concur with the examiner that Johnson, like appellants,
discloses a vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process for
making a laminate wherein the preform is debulked and double
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007