Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
pipe segments at the cut-back portions.” Appellant’s argument directed to
claim 18 mirrors the argument made with respect to claim 14 concerning the
composite reinforcement. The argument is unpersuasive for reasons
discussed above.
Claim 21, dependent from claim 18, was not separately argued and,
therefore stands or falls with claim 18.
Claim 22 is essentially of the same scope as claim 17. The argument
raised against claim 22 is the same as the argument directed to claim 17.
This argument also is unpersuasive as discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipatory rejections of claims 18, 21
and 22 over Wilhelm.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WILHELM AND DEMPSTER
Dempster is directed to “[a] tape wrap system adapted for protecting
metal tubular articles, particularly pipes, from corrosion comprising in order,
a primer coating covering the surface of the article, an innerwrap over the
primer coating and an outerwrap placed over the innerwrap” (Abstract).
Both the innerwrap and the outerwrap comprise heat fusible materials
(Abstract). Dempster also discloses:
The general process of producing the tape wrap
system of this invention includes well known plant
tape coating methods. By way of illustration, pipe
may initially be cleaned by any of the conventional
ways known in the art such as by shot or grit
blasting and preheated, e.g. to 125o-200 oF. Primer
is then applied to the pipe by way of well known
processes such as spraying or brushing [col. 4,
lines 42-47].
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007