Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
The Examiner contends that the structure of the resin laminates of
Wilhelm “includes multiple laminates or reinforcement layers, the innermost
one of which can be viewed as a ‘composite joint tape’ and the adjacent one
(with respect to the innermost one) of which can be viewed as a ‘resin
saturated tape’” (Answer para. bridging 5 and 6). The Examiner refers to the
sole figure of Wilhelm as depicting “multiple fiber reinforced laminates 5, 6
. . . wrapped around the uncoated portion of the weld region” (Answer 6).
The Examiner explains that “the innermost laminate 5, 6 can be viewed as
the joint tape and the outermost laminate can be viewed as the fabric- the
claims as currently drafted fail to exclude the respective layers from being
the same” (id.).
Appellant argues that “different claim terms (‘composite joint tape’
and ‘resin saturated reinforcement tape’) [are used] to identify these
elements, necessarily [suggesting] the presence of two separate elements
differing in scope. Thus, identical mats of Wilhelm, regardless of how many
layers are applied, may not be relied upon to teach both a ‘composite joint
tape’ and a ‘resin saturated reinforcement tape’” (Br. para. bridging 10 and
11).
The Examiner states that “[t]he mere use of different claim terms does
not restrict a first and second laminate formed of the same material from
being viewed as a ‘composite joint tape’ and a ‘resin saturated tape.’ The
claims as currently drafted fail to identify any specific characteristics or
arrangements for the respective layers other than one being a composite tape
and the other being a resin saturated tape- in this instance, the laminates of
Wilhelm are fiber/resin composites [and] are seen to constitute either layer
of the claimed invention” (Answer 10).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007