Appeal 2006-3219
Application 10/122,270
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
OTHER ISSUES
While we have affirmed the decision of the Primary Examiner based
on the grounds of rejection of record, we suggest the Primary Examiner
consider the following upon any further prosecution of the appealed claims
subsequent to the disposition of this appeal.
Appellant discloses in the Specification that the arrangement of blanks
for the claimed automotive part can be that described in acknowledging prior
art French Patent No. 2,749,535, characterized in the Specification and
illustrated in Specification Fig. 1, to which is added blanks 24 of “Twintex,”
as illustrated in Specification Fig. 4, to obtain an improvement over that
prior art disclosure (Specification, e.g., 3:24 to 4:12, 7:22 to 8:4, 8:23 to 9:1,
9:21-24, and Figs. 1-6). According to Appellant, “Twintex” is a known
woven material “manufactured by Vetrotex France” that “includes woven
mats made of tows that contain both glass and polypropylene fibers” and
used in manufacturing the part disclosed in said French Patent (Specification
4:7-15; see also 4:16 to 5:12).
Accordingly, based on Appellant’s characterization of said French
Patent, it reasonably appears that the addition of a further woven mat
reinforcing material, taught in this patent document to provide strength, in
the manufacture of the part to further increase the mechanical strength
thereof to withstand high speed impacts would been within the ordinary skill
in this art at the time the claimed invention was made within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013