Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
suitable for cold curing or photo curing such as that of Wilhelm, would not
necessarily be interchangeable with a heat curing system as taught by
Dempster” (Br. 12).
The Examiner contends:
Dempster . . . [evinces] a heating step as
representing a common technique in the treatment
of metallic pipes prior to the application of a
reinforcement material . . . . [T]he treatments are
carried out to provide a clean surface for the
application of a reinforcement material and would
have been practiced on any metallic pipe surface
prior to the application of a reinforcement
material” [Answer 9].
In reply, Appellant repeats the arguments made in the Brief (Reply Br.
5).
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “preheating the first and the second
pipe at the cut-back portion of the first ends.” According to Appellant’s
Specification, “preheating [of the metal core] drives off moisture and
provides a dry surface for subsequent welding and reinforcement adhesion”
(Spec. 5). Appellant’s Specification also indicates that “[t]he [steel] core
130 may be preheated . . . to remove excess moisture and to kick off the cure
of the composite reinforcement 140 during subsequent application” (Spec.
8).
Like Appellant, both Wilhelm and Dempster are directed to protecting
metal pipes from corrosion (Wilhelm Translation 2; Dempster col. 3, lines 7-
10). Both Wilhelm and Dempster also address protection of welded joints
(Wilhelm Translation 8; Dempster col. 5, lines 12-13). In addition, Wilhelm
and Dempster teach cleaning at least a portion of the pipe surface prior to
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007