Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to apply the crosslinkable resin
taught by Johansen et al. simultaneously with winding the
reinforcing fibers, e.g.[,] as resin impregnated fibers, as
this was a well known technique in the art for applying
reinforcing fiber and resin to a core when forming a hose as
shown for example by the admitted prior art or Green et al.
wherein only the expected results/benefits would be
achieved, i.e.[,] applying the reinforcing fibers and resin
in a single (as opposed to multiple) step.
This obviousness conclusion is well founded. An artisan
would have been motivated to so combine the aforenoted prior art
teachings in order to provide Johansen’s core tube with the
combination of a reinforcing layer and adhesive as desired by
patentee in a single deposition step wherein the reinforcing
fibers impregnated with crosslinkable resin or adhesive are wound
onto the core tube. The motivation for this provision would have
included the increased efficiency of effecting Johansen’s desired
result in a single step as opposed to providing the desired
reinforcing layer and adhesive in separate steps.
The appellants argue that “there is no suggestion in
Johansen et al. to conduct crosslinking after at least a
protection layer is hardened, i.e., to harden the protection
layer before polymerization and/or crosslinking of the composite
layer of reinforcing fibers embedded in a matrix as presently
claimed” (brief, page 6). This argument is unpersuasive as fully
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007