Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
explained on pages 11-14 of the answer. To summarize, Johansen
teaches or at least would have suggested hardening sheath 11
prior to his crosslinking step (e.g., see figure 3 of the
patent).
In response to this explanation by the examiner, the
appellants urge that “the Examiner has made a fundamental missing
interpretation [sic, misinterpretation?] of the present invention
in relation to the Johansen et al. patent” (reply brief, page 2).
Specifically, the appellants point out that Johansen fails to
disclose the hereclaimed feature wherein the reinforcing fibers
are embedded in a matrix of polymerizable and/or crosslinkable
material and then argue that “[w]hether or not the sheath 11 of
Johansen et al. is hardened before or after the cross-linking of
the core tube 13 and the sheath 11 is irrelevant” (reply brief,
page 4). In this regard, the appellants urge that, “[s]ince the
Johansen et al. patent does not disclose reinforcing fibers
embedded in a matrix made of polymerizable and/or crosslinkable
material, it of course can not disclose or suggest hardening of a
protection layer before polymerization and/or crosslinking of
such a composite” (id.).
This argument is not well taken because it ignores the
examiner’s exposition of his rejection and more particularly the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007