Appeal 2007-0906
Application 10/445,238
However, for reasons substantially similar to those discussed above with
regard to the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection over Clarke in view of Harvey,
we determine that these claim differences would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. This is because Appellants have acknowledged
that VectranTM is a known and available LCP that is bi-axially oriented and
has a softening temperature of about 110 to 120 degrees Centigrade
(Specification 6) and Harvey teaches that Vectra ® are commercially
available multi-axially oriented LCP polymers. In this regard, Harvey
teaches that these polymers are suitable for use in forming coating films
useful in the formation of laminate film composites for the aerospace
industry and would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art
as a suitable and available LCP material for use in the claimed method of
Clarke for the advantageous strength properties thereof (Harvey, col. 6, ll. 8-
68). As for the curing temperature requirements of representative claims 1
and 4, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to determine an appropriate workable curing temperature for the
claimed curing step of Clarke upon routine experimentation and in so doing
arrive at the subject matter of representative claims 1 and 4, for substantially
the reasons we discussed above with respect to the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection over Clarke in view of Harvey. After all, skill and not the converse
is expected of an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Concerning separately argued claim 6, we
agree with the Examiner’s obviousness assessment of the addition of an
abrading step like that required for Appellants’ claim 6 to the process of
claim 1 of Clarke because the Examiner has made an uncontested finding of
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013