Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
claim 15 has no limitations concerning the extent of the cut-back portion of
the pipe that is to be preheated (Answer 9).
We agree with the Examiner’s contention, as apparently conceded by
Appellant (Reply Br. 4), that the language of claim 15 does not require “that
the entire curt-back [sic, cut-back] portion is heated” (Answer 9) for the
following reasons.
While Appellant points to sections of the Specification to support the
allegation that claim 15 “requires heating more than just a boundary between
the core and composite reinforcement 140” (Reply Br. para. bridging 4 and
5), the sections relied on do not address preheating of the cut-back portion.
Even if the Specification disclosed the extent of the cut-back portion to be
heated, to read the claim as argued by Appellants would impermissibly read
a limitation into claim 15. LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping,
Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1344, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1724, 1731 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Further, as pointed out by the Examiner, Wilhelm’s “heating [of the
plastic coating] terminates at the boundary between the coated and uncoated
regions of the pipe” (Answer 9). We do not envision how Wilhelm’s cut-
back portion would not be preheated to some extent, and Appellant has
provided no evidence or pointed to no portion of Wilhelm in support of his
argument. Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “some
of the uncoated region (cut-back region) would be heated” (Answer 5).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wilhelm.
Claim 17 further requires the step of “wrapping a resin saturated
reinforcement tape circumferentially around the joint tape to prevent surface
cracking of the joint tape.”
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007