Appeal No. 1999-2145 Page 8
Application No. 08/781,605
method failed to restore a damaged section of a pipeline to its original burst strength. The
apparent causes were failure of the adhesive, compression of the adhesive allowing the
pipe to expand, and breaking of certain layers due to inadequate transfer of force between
layers. See pages 5-7. It is our view that the information provided in this Fawley
declaration also is applicable to the device and method as disclosed in Pipeline
Reinforcement.
As the examiner has impliedly admitted in the Answer, none of these references
teach filling a depression in the weakened area with a filler material prior to installing the
CLOCK SPRING device on the pipe, which steps are present in the method of claims 33
and 47.
From our perspective, the evidence provided in the Fawley declarations
establishes that the crack arrestor disclosed in the Fawley patent, Pipeline Reinforcement
and Reinforcement Digest, when installed in accordance with the methods disclosed
therein, not only was not capable of restoring the burst strength of a pipe having an
unbreached weakened region to a level at which the pipe can withstand its original
pressure, but that the inventor believed prior to the testing that such was the case.
Accompanying the 1995 Fawley declaration are selected pages from a report by
Southwest Research Institute and Battelle Columbus Division regarding the testing that
was done, and which succeeded in developing a method whereby the CLOCK SPRING
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007