Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
Independent claim 24 differs from independent claim 14 in that it
requires a priming step and further requires “wrapping a fabric over the
wrapped joint tape to provide hoop reinforcement to the first and second
pipe segments at the cut-back regions” prior to the curing step.
The Examiner contends that “the innermost laminate is seen to
constitute a joint tape and the adjacent laminate is seen to constitute the
fabric” (Answer 7). This rationale for the rejection over Wilhelm and
Dempster parallels the rationale presented against claim 17.
Appellant’s arguments also parallel the arguments and are
unpersuasive for reasons analogous to those discussed previously.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 24.
Claim 19 requires “heating the metallic core to kick off cure of the
resin in the composite joint tape.” The Examiner again relies on the
combination of Wilhelm and Dempster to meet the recited limitation.
Appellant argues, “Wilhelm fails to teach the element of ‘heating the
metallic core to kick off cure of a resin in the composite joint tape’ as recited
in Claim 19. Instead, Wilhelm teaches ‘curing is carried out under radiation
with UV-light or sunlight’” (Br. para. bridging 13 and 14).
While conceding that “Wilhelm discloses a method in which the resin
is cured via UV light or sunlight” (Answer 10), the Examiner contends that
“the above noted heated [sic, heating] steps (of the plastic coating [as taught
by Wilhelm] or of the pipe prior to wrapping the reinforcement [as taught by
Dempster]) would be expected to contribute a small amount to the curing of
the resin- as currently drafted, the claim only requires that the metallic core
is heated to kick off cure of the resin” (Answer para. bridging 10 and 11).
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007