Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
other prior art applied in this rejection. As quite clearly
expressed in the aforequoted statement from pages 5-6 of the
answer, the examiner fully appreciates that the Johansen patent
is “silent as to winding reinforcing fibers impregnated with the
crosslinkable resin” (answer, pages 5-6). Concerning this
deficiency of Johansen, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious “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 fibers 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” (answer, page 6). In short, Johansen when modified by the
admitted prior art and Green in the manner proposed by the
examiner would result in a method having all of the features and
steps recited in appealed independent claim 1 including the
feature wherein reinforcing fibers are embedded in a matrix made
of a polymerizable and/or crosslinkable material.
Under these circumstances and for the reasons set forth in
the answer, we hereby sustain the examiner’s Section 103
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007