Appeal 2006-2160
Application 09/896,439
Binning for use as ablative material in rocket nozzle environments (id.). We
agree.
The Examiner recognizes that the APA and Binning are silent as to
the denier of the fibers used to form the reinforcement structure (Answer 3).
The Examiner applies Lambdin for the teaching of making carbonized
impregnated fiber composites from rayon to be used in rocket nozzles,
where the denier of the fiber is about 2.3 (id.). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to use any
conventional size fiber, and cites Lambdin as evidence that 2.3 denier fibers
have previously been employed in carbonized impregnated fiber composites
useful in rocket nozzles (Answer 3-4). We agree.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed motivation to combine
references is improper (Br. 6, 8). Specifically, Appellant argues that the fact
that rayon is no longer available does not provide the requisite motivation to
use aromatic polyamide as the alternative to rayon (Br. 8). We disagree.
We determine that the fact that rayon is no longer available would have
provided the motivation to one of ordinary skill in this art to seek alternative
materials that provide the same or similar properties. Thus one of ordinary
skill in this art would have been led to Binning, who discloses an alternative
aromatic polyamide precursor material used with resins to produce plastic
composites with satisfactory physical properties to be useful in rocket nose
cones and exhaust nozzles (col. 2, ll. 34-41; and col. 3, ll. 17-20).
Furthermore, we determine that the fact that rayon is taught by Binning as a
less preferred fiber starting material (col. 3, ll. 22-30) would have also
motivated one of ordinary skill in this art to use the aromatic polyamide
starting material of Binning as a substitute for the rayon of the APA.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007