Appeal No. 96-1950
Application No. 08/099,929
(2) Claims 2 to 5, unpatentable over Igarashi ‘906 in view of
Satoh and Nishimura;
(3) Claim 13, unpatentable over Igarashi ‘906 in view of Satoh
and Nakaya.
Considering first the rejection of claim 1, we do not
consider that Satoh would have taught or suggested to one of
ordinary skill that the hose of Igarashi ‘906 be made with the
particular layer thicknesses and thickness ratios recited in
claim 1. While Satoh does disclose a hose having layers of
such thicknesses and ratios as would at least overlap those
claimed, the inner layer of the Satoh hose is a fluorine
rubber, rather than the claimed "fluorine-contained [sic:
containing?] resin," the reason why Satoh uses an inner3
layer of 0.2 to 0.7 mm is because the patentees state that
they have discovered that such a thin layer of fluorine rubber
will "screen" the gasoline permeating therethrough so that it
will be no longer erosive to the surrounding layer of less
expensive rubber (col. 3, lines 40 to 50; col. 7, lines 23 to
3On December 1, 1994, appellants filed a Rule 132
Declaration by Tsutomu Kodama and copies of pages from the
Rubber Handbook and Modern Plastics Encyclopedia to show the
differences between fluorine rubbers and fluorine resins.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007