Appeal 2007-2175
Application 10/315,464
Specifically, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jahn in view of Hergeth in further
view of Wurtz (Answer 6).
II. DISCUSSION
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336,
quoted with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
In the present case, the Examiner has not provided a logical basis for
combining the disparate teachings of the references.
Jahn describes an apparatus for making a wound graphite carbon
body. The apparatus includes a mandrel and a mold. The process involves
winding fiber material (in the form of filaments, yarns, tapes, or fabrics)
around the mandrel, impregnating the fiber material with binder, curing the
impregnated binder, placing the assembly into a mold, and carbonizing the
binder.
Hergeth describes an apparatus for feeding loose fibers to a fiber
treating machine such as a carding machine. Loose fibers are blown by air-
jets from one conveyor to another and further to the fiber treating machine,
e.g., the carding machine.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013