Appeal No. 2005-1492
Application No. 10/082,375
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we will
sustain each of these rejections.
Ostrowski discloses a process for coating a continuous
length of metal tubing which comprises a tension applying step of
the type defined by appealed claim 1. According to patentee,
this tension applying step yields numerous advantages (e.g., see
the Abstract, lines 29-46 in column 1, the paragraph bridging
columns 5 and 6, lines 6-27 in column 6 and lines 4-24 in column
8). Claim 1 differs from Ostrowski by requiring that the coating
be cured via an electron-beam. In patentee’s process, the
coating is cured via induction heaters (e.g., see lines 46-55 in
column 3).
Maddox also discloses a metal tube coating process. In
this process, the coating is cured via an electron beam which is
disclosed as having a number of advantages particularly relative
1(...continued)
as current regulation 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007