Appeal 2007-0407
Application 10/243,796
identified how the caul plate of Palmer would function in conjunction with
the other components such as the peel ply material (59) and the flow media
(60) described and Waldrop. The Examiner has failed to specifically
identify the portions of the Waldrop reference that the caul plate of Palmer
would have replaced. Furthermore, Appellants contend that Waldrop is
directed to a slow resin and fusion process while the Palmer reference is
directed towards rapid resin flow and the caul plate of Palmer is a rigid
structure and not suitable for application between a tooling detail and a
preform (Br. 6; Reply Br. 5). The Examiner has failed to explain why a
rigid material suitable for rapid resin flow would have been suitable for use
in the invention of Waldrop. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s contentions
in the Answer, we determine that a person having ordinary skill in the
relevant art would not have been led to the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s §103 rejection is reversed.
The Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 1-38 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S.
Patent Application No. 10/153,301 in view of Waldrop. We affirm.
Appellants do not explain the reasons why the appealed claims are
patentably indistinct from the claims of Application No. 10/153,301
Appellants only state that “Appellant proposes filing a terminal disclaimer in
compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.321(b), or otherwise addressing this
obviousness-type double patenting rejection, if this rejection still stands
upon issuance of a Notice of Allowability in the present case or in U.S.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013