Appeal No. 1996-2874
Application No. 08/027,849
page 2. At page 2 of the specification, we also note that
appellant states:
The cross linking ensues upon heating and/or
under the influence of peroxide catalysts, with the
cooperation of accelerators, such as amine salts and
heavy metal salts. Optionally, the curing may also
be performed by the action of ionizing radiation or
UV radiation in the presence of sensitizers, such as
quinones.
Moreover, the tubular body resulting from heat curing the
outer layer reaction resin shares the same or substantially
the same physical properties as the tubular body resulting
from curing the outer layer reaction resin with light. They
both can be operated at a high pressure level, even as high as
350 bar. Compare, e.g., specification, page 5, with Fuchs,
column 1, lines 10-18 and column 3, lines 1-16. Given the
above facts, we agree with the examiner that the prior art
tubular body is identical or substantially identical to the
claimed tubular body within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102 or
§ 103.
Appellant argues that the claimed tubular body is made by
a process which is different from that described in the
applied prior art, thus rendering the claimed tubular body
patentable over those described or suggested in the applied
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007