Appeal No. 2006-0772
Application No. 09/731,945
ordinary skill in the art to err on the side of caution while
remaining mindful of the cost/benefit analysis with respect to
the use of the flow control medium. While appellants maintain
that "McClure actually teaches not to use such flow media because
it requires labor to place it . . ." (page 10 of principal brief,
third paragraph), McClure provides the relevant disclosure that
"[c]ontemporary techniques for facilitating more uniformed or
homogeneous resin distribution include the use of cloth material
adjacent the fiber lay-up [which] forms a screen or matrix of
open spaces which tends to wick the resin, and thereby
facilitates resin flow" (column 1, lines 49-53).
Appellants do not set forth a separate substantive argument
for the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 10 over the further citation
of Imanara, i.e., appellants do not contest the examiner's
conclusion that "[i]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to have tilted that mold assembly as taught by
Imanara" (page 8 of Answer, last paragraph).
Regarding separately argued claim 11, we fully concur with
the examiner that Stoeberl evidences the obviousness of
throttling the vacuum line to provide uniform distribution of
resin throughout the fiber reinforcement.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007