Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
its fairness is evidenced by the inability of the Patent and Trademark Office
to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Id., 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34.
As indicated above, the Examiner has provided an adequate technical
reasoning of why Wilhelm’s composite joint tape provides some degree of
hoop reinforcement. On the record before us, the Appellant has submitted
no evidence that proves otherwise. Thus, it is our determination and that the
Examiner has established that Wilhelm anticipates the invention of claim 14
and that the Appellant has failed to successfully rebut the Examiner’s
reasoning that Wilhelm provides “some degree of hoop reinforcement. ”
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipatory rejection of claim 14.
Claim 15 requires “preheating the first pipe and the second pipe at the
cut-back portion of the first ends.” The Examiner contends “Wilhelm
describes a preheating step in order to melt the plastic coating . . . . In this
instance, heating would occur at the boundary between the coated and
uncoated regions and thus, it appears that some of the uncoated region
(cutback region) would be heated” (Answer 5).
Appellant argues:
Wilhelm teaches the heat is applied to melt the
plastic to assist in embedding fibers within the
plastic. Certainly, this is not ”preheating” as the
term is understood in light of Appellant’s
Specification, which teaches preheating the core to
drive off moisture, provide a dry surface and kick
off curing [Br. 10].
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007