Appeal 2006-2160
Application 09/896,439
(Answer 4).2 Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all rejections
on appeal essentially for those reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below. We refer to the Brief and the Answer for a
complete exposition of the countervailing arguments for and against
patentability.
OPINION
A. The Rejections over the APA, Binning and Lambdin
The Examiner finds that the admitted prior art discussed on pages 1-3
of the Specification discloses carbonizing a viscose rayon woven mat,
impregnating it with a resin, and lining the interior of a rocket nozzle with
the impregnated material to act as an ablative material (Answer 3). The
Examiner further finds that it was known in the admitted prior art that the
precursor viscose rayon woven mat was no longer available (id.). The
Examiner finds that Binning discloses carbonizing a polyaramide fiber mat,
combining it with a resin, and using this material in nose cones or rocket
nozzle exhausts (id.). The Examiner also finds that Binning teaches that
rayon is a less preferred fiber to use in this environment (id.). From these
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time of Appellant’s invention to replace the
unavailable rayon of the admitted prior art with the preferred polyaramide of
2 The Examiner also repeats two other rejections (Answer 6, 7). However,
as noted by Appellant (Br. 14-15), these rejections are essentially the same
as the above cited rejections, involving the same claims, the same issues, but
merely reversing the order of two references. Therefore, in the interest of
judicial economy, we consider the two above cited rejections with our
remarks equally applying to the remaining rejections on pages 6 and 7 of the
Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007