Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
However, Appellant also discloses “the isopolyester resin may be substituted
with any resin with similar strength and elongation characteristics to support
the fibers” (Spec. 4). A composite, as understood in light of the
Specification, appears to be a resin coating in combination with glass fibers.
As indicated above, Wilhelm discloses partially embedding
reinforcement fibers in the pipe’s plastic coating (Translation 10). We also
note that Wilhelm’s disclosure consistently refers to the embedded glass
fibers as reinforcement fibers or material (id.). Thus, one skilled in the art
would interpret the term “composite reinforcement” to encompass the
coating/glass fiber components of Wilhelm. For this reason, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument 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.”
With respect to the limitation in claim 14 regarding "curing the
composite joint tape to provide hoop reinforcement," Appellant further
argues that “[t]he Examiner suggests merely wrapping a reinforcement layer
in the hoop direction would necessarily provide some degree of hoop
reinforcement” (Br. para. bridging 8 and 9).
Regarding the rejection by the Examiner, Appellant submits “Wilhelm
does not expressly teach the laminate provides hoop reinforcement. Instead,
Wilhelm teaches the laminate protects against corrosion and may be used to
improve adhesion” (Br. 9). Appellant additionally argues “Wilhelm further
fails to suggest any particular fiber orientation, number or the strength of the
fibers that may be found within the mat used to make the laminate. Still
further, Wilhelm fails to indicate the tension of application of the mat
layers” (id.).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007