Appeal 2007-0906
Application 10/445,238
temperature above a softening temperature thereof. Indeed, the asserted
advantages are only described as being possible with the claimed curing
temperature. Furthermore, no comparative tests have been furnished in the
Specification to establish the criticality of the claimed curing temperature
range of either representative claim 1 or claim 4. Lastly, the asserted
possible advantages appear to be reasonably predictable potential advantages
in that heating a polymer layer above the softening temperature thereof
during curing would be reasonably expected to allow for some additional
conformation of the softened polymer layer with the composite layer
associated therewith which would concomitantly allow for adjusting the
thickness of the LCP layer.
Concerning dependent claim 6, Appellants further argue that the
additional step of abrading a facing composite surface before the composite
is applied to the LCP layer on the tool is not taught or suggested by Clarke
(Br. 7). Moreover, Appellants maintain that the Examiner erred in asserting
the equivalence of abrading the composite with applying an adhesive as
taught by Clarke because the Examiner makes the allegedly asserted
equivalence rationale based on an alleged equivalence teaching from
Appellants’ Specification, not the prior art (Reply Br. 6; Answer 9-10,
Specification 7, ll. 11-17; and Clarke, col. 5, ll. 18-24).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in referring to their
Specification as if Appellants’ asserted teaching therein were a prior art
teaching of equivalence between abrading the composite with applying an
adhesive for increasing bonding. However, we do not find that asserted
Specification reference by the Examiner to be adequate to establish
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013