Appeal No. 1998-3427 Page 5
Application No. 08/442,109
lines 21-48; Col. 4, lines 54 to 62). There is no discussion
of continuous filament fiber material.
As such, we agree with the appellants that Cocks does not
disclose the use of continuous filament fibers. Therefore, we
will not sustain this rejection of claims 31 or claims 32
through 35, 37 through 41, 43, 45 and 46 dependent therefrom.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 36, 42
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks.
Each of the claims subject to this rejection is ultimately
dependent on claim 31. As such, each of the claims which are
subject to this rejection require the step of “forming the
outer lining by helically winding a plurality of layers of
continuous filament fiber material.” We find no suggestion in
Cocks to utilize continuous filament fiber material. Rather,
Cocks suggest that a composite pipe should be formed using
woven glass fiber and chopped fiber strand mat. (Col. 2, lines
51 to 65; Col. 4, lines 57 to 62). In view of the foregoing,
we will not sustain this rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007