Appeal 2007-0906
Application 10/445,238
fact with respect to abrading being a conventional step in the art and we
agree that the addition of such a step to the claimed process of Clarke would
have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being useful as an
adjunct to the adhesive applying step of Clarke in obtaining a composite
structure with an adequately adhered protective coating (Clarke; cl. 1, step
(d)).
In light of the above, it follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness type double patenting rejection of the appealed claims over the
claims of Clarke in view of Harvey.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Harvey; and to reject
claims 1-13 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-6 of Clarke taken in view of Harvey is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
cam
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013