Appeal No. 2000-1131 Page 7
Application No. 08/505,183
adhesion by a conventional corona discharge treatment, which Appellants urge is completely
different from the vulcanization process utilized in the present invention (Brief, page 11). We do
not find this argument persuasive because Stevens describes curing or vulcanizing the elastomer
while the elastomeric layer is in contact with the thermoplastic layer (col. 3, lines 3-8 and col. 4,
lines 49-51). While Stevens additionally performs a corona discharge treatment, the claims do
not exclude the inclusion of such a treatment nor is there any evidence that the resulting product
is different than the claimed product. Moreover, Stevens indicates that the corona discharge
treatment promotes adhesion. A vulcanized elastomer is “overmoulded directly” onto the
thermoplastic as required by claim 1 and is “directly associated” as required by claim 7.
Moreover, the vulcanization occurs subsequent to overmoulding as required by claim 6.
With respect to claim 6, Appellants argue that Stevens fails to disclose vulcanizing during
or subsequent to moulding. We disagree. Stevens describes curing by heating in the general
discussion of the invention (col. 3, lines 6-8) and then more specifically describes the curing
process in Examples 2 and 3 as involving placing the hose in a steam vulcanizer to crosslink the
elastomers (col. 4, lines 49-51). The vulcanizing step occurs subsequent to overmoulding (col. 3,
lines 3-8; col. 4, lines 46-51) as recited in claim 6.
With respect to claim 8, Appellants argue that Stevens does not disclose or suggest
coating of an inner layer which has barrier properties (Brief, page 11). The Examiner, on the
other hand, refers to column 1, line 50 to column 2, line 3 for a description of an inner layer of
fluoroelastomer. This inner layer is to be used to form hoses with greater fuel permeation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007