Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
With respect to claim 14, Appellant “disagrees with the Examiner's
characterization” that “the plastic coating . . . embedded with fibers . . .
constitutes a ‘composite reinforcement’” (Br. 8). Appellant contends:
Wilhelm does not suggest this technique [of
embedding fibers into the plastic coating to
improve adhesion] in any way provides
reinforcement to the underlying core. Moreover,
the partial embedding of fibers into two separate
10 cm wide regions at only the ends of a plastic
coating which may be anywhere from 10 m to 25
m long, may not be characterized as a ”composite
reinforcement” as required in Claim[] 14 [id.].
The Examiner responds that “the pipe segments are defined by a core
1 and a composite reinforcement, wherein said composite reinforcement is
formed of a polyethylene coating 3 and a fibrous reinforcement material 4”
(Answer 8). According to the Examiner, “in an analogous manner to the
claimed invention, the composite reinforcement is not present over the weld
region” (id.).
In reply, Appellant repeats his position that the plastic coating of
Wilhelm is not a composite reinforcement (Reply Br. 2) and that “the
Examiner has not shown that the coating 3/ [glass] fiber 4 combination of
Wilhelm suggests any sort of ‘composite reinforcement’ as the term is used
within claim[] 14” (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant’s arguments question whether the coating/fiber combination
of Wilhelm is a composite reinforcement. Thus, we must first address what
constitutes a composite reinforcement.
Appellant describes the composite reinforcement as “made with a[n]
isopolyester resin matrix with E glass fibers” (Spec. para. bridging 3 and 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007