Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
application of the reinforcement material. Specifically, Wilhelm teaches
cleaning at least the weld joint by sandblasting (Translation 11). Dempster
discloses “conventional ways known in the art [to clean pipe surfaces] such
as by shot or grit blasting and preheat[ing], e.g. to 125o-200 oF” (col. 4, lines
46-47).
Based on these disclosures and the common purpose of corrosion
prevention, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found the disclosure
of Dempster regarding the preheating step applicable to the process of
Wilhelm as “a conventional manner [to treat steel pipes] prior to applying
. . . composite tapes” (Answer 7).
Accordingly, we sustain the alternative rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wilhelm in view of Dempster.
Claim 16 recites “priming the first ends of the cut-back portions.”
The Examiner relies on the combination of Wilhelm and Dempster to meet
this limitation for the reasons expressed in the above quotation from the
paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the Answer.
Appellant argues “the adhesion mechanism of Wilhelm is not
facilitated by priming, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to add a useless or redundant step to the process of Wilhelm” (Br.
13).
According to the Examiner:
A fair reading of Dempster suggests that the
disclosed treatment techniques are generally
applicable to methods in which a reinforcement
material is applied to a metallic pipe surface. This
is further supported by the suggestion of one of the
treatment techniques by Wilhelm in a method
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007