Appeal No. 1999-2145 Page 2
Application No. 08/781,605
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a method for restoring the burst strength of a
pipe having an unbreached weakened region. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 33, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's Brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Shaw 2,924,546 Feb. 9, 1960
Stark 2,955,642 Oct. 11, 1960
Medkeff et al. (Medkeff) 3,358,898 Dec. 19, 1967
Schumacher 4,511,626 Apr. 16, 1985
Fawley 4,700,752 Oct. 20, 1987
Pipeline Reinforcement brochure (4 pages), Nov. 10, 1987
Reinforcement Digest No. 46, “A new family of composite products stops cracks in line
pipe, extends life of pipelines, improves safety,” pages 2-5, Jan. 1989
The admitted prior art set forth on pages 1 and 2 of the appellant’s specification
Claims 33-40, 43-50, 53-58 and 61-63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reinforcement Digest and Fawley in view of the admitted prior
art, Shaw, Stark and Medkeff, and optionally further in view of Pipeline Reinforcement.
Claims 41, 42, 51, 59 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the references cited against claim 33 et al., taken further with
Schumacher.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007