Ex Parte DiMarzio et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-0906                                                                                 
                Application 10/445,238                                                                           

                       Based on these factual determinations, the Examiner has taken the                         
                position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at                  
                the time of the invention to employ a conventional multi-axial oriented LCP,                     
                such as disclosed or suggested by Harvey or the VectranTM as acknowledged                        
                by Appellants to be commercially available, as the LCP material used in the                      
                process of Clarke for yielding a composite laminate having improved                              
                strength characteristic (Answer 4 and 7-11).  Moreover, in so doing, the                         
                Examiner has essentially determined that one of ordinary skill in the art                        
                would have been led to employ a workable curing temperature for the curing                       
                step of Clarke, via the use of routine skill and/or experimentation, that would                  
                have corresponded with the curing temperature required by claim 1 or by                          
                claim 4 (Answer 7-11).3  We agree.                                                               
                       In light of our determinations set forth above and for reasons stated in                  
                the Answer, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as to a lack of a                      
                teaching, suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to                       
                arrive at the claimed process from the applied prior art.  Concerning                            
                Appellants’ focus on an alleged lack of the claimed curing temperature being                     

                                                                                                                
                claimed invention, and that consideration of the prior art cited by the                          
                Examiner may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in the                        
                Specification.  In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571, 184 USPQ 607, 611-                          
                612 (CCPA 1975); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258                               
                (CCPA 1962).                                                                                     
                3 We do not agree that Clarke discloses a curing temperature at column 5,                        
                lines 5-10 and/or at column 5, lines 50-53 thereof to the extent the Examiner                    
                so argued (Answer 3 and 7).  However, we deem this seemingly asserted                            
                matter to represent harmless error in that the Examiner correctly determined                     
                that selecting a workable curing temperature would have been within the                          
                skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan upon routine experimentation.                       
                                                       6                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013