Appeal No. 96-1950
Application No. 08/099,929
The Nishimura and Nakaya references, additionally applied
in rejections (2) and (3), do not supply the deficiencies
noted with regard to Igarashi ‘906 and Satoh. We also note
that, in any event, the addition of Nakaya would not render
claim 13 unpatentable because we do not consider that Nakaya’s
disclosure of the use of corona discharge or plasma treatment
to convert a plastic surface to hydrophilic so that it will
adhere to an aqueous coating composition would teach one of
ordinary skill to so treat the surface of the Igarashi ‘906
inner layer la in order to enhance the adhesion of
intermediate rubber layer 1b. The rejections of claims 2 to 5
and 13 will therefore also not be sustained.
Rejections Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
The following rejections are made pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b):
(A) Claims 1, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected as anticipated by
Igarashi ‘647 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In col. 5, Table 4,
Igarashi ‘647 discloses Comparative Example 2, a fuel hose
having a 0.1 mm thick inner layer ("inside layer") of the
fluorine-containing resin, FEP; a 1.6 mm thick intermediate
layer ("outside layer") of "N" (acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007