Appeal No. 2002-0919
Application No. 09/152,170
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Ashton et al. (Ashton) 3,970,495 Jul. 20, 1976
Forsman 5,025,943 Jun. 25, 1991
Berg et al. (Berg) 5,208,051 May 04, 1993
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Forsman, Ashton and Berg. (Answer, p. 3).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejection of claims 1 to 25 is
not well founded. Our reasons appear below. We will limit our discussion to the
independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 11 and 12.
Forsman discloses a process for the formation of a composite vessel that has a fiber
material reinforced with a thermoplastic composite shell over a thermoplastic internal liner.
(Col. 2, ll. 37 to 57). The thermoplastic impregnated fibers are wound around the
thermoplastic liner, which acts as a mandrel. (Col. 3, ll. 57 to 61). The thermoplastic liner
may be pressurized while the fiber material is wound. (Col. 4, ll. 7 to 17). Forsman differs
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007