Appeal No. 1996-2874
Application No. 08/027,849
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain each of the foregoing § 102 and §
103 rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
completeness.
Appellant does not dispute that Fuchs discloses a tube
comprising an inner layer of polyamide (a thermoplastic
material) and an outer layer of fiber reinforce thermoplastic
resin cured at about 140 C to 160 C. See Brief, pages 5 ando o
6. Appellant also does not dispute that it would have been
obvious to incorporate neopentyl glycol taught by Hoefer (as
required, e.g., by dependent claims 3 and 4) as part of the
heat curable thermoplastic resin of the tube described in
Fuchs. See Brief, pages 9-11. Further, appellant does not
rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
disclosure of Archer. Indeed, appellant recognizes that the §
103 rejection over the disclosure of Archer includes claim 14.
See Brief, page 7.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007