Appeal No. 95-0942
Application 07/877,772
Claims 1 through 4 and 10 through 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tailor in view of Lindsey
and Koopman.
Claims 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tailor in view of Lindsey, Koopman and
Straughan.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The examiner has rejected independent claim 1 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Tailor taken in view of those
of Lindsey and Koopman. The examiner finds in Tailor all of the
subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the form of the
covering (continuous wrapping), the manner of wrapping the
covering (applying a stress), and the method for heating the
cover (induction). After pointing out that Lindsey discloses
wrapping a pipe with a continuous wrap and Koopman teaches curing
the resin in the wrap by inductively heating the pipe upon which
it is wrapped, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to so modify the
system of Tailor. According to the examiner, the first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007