Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
involving a weld region of adjacent, metallic pipes
[Answer 10].
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the adhesion
mechanism of Wilhelm is not facilitated by priming. Appellant has pointed
to no disclosure in Wilhelm that supports this argument. On the contrary,
Wilhelm offers an alternative manner to apply the joint tape that includes
“first paint[ing] the . . . resin onto the weld joint, then lay the fiber form on
top, press it into the resin and cure this” (Translation para. bridging 8 and 9).
This step is suggestive of a priming step.
As noted above, Wilhelm and Dempster are directed to protecting
metal pipes from corrosion, particularly welded joints. Dempster teaches
applying primer to the surface of the pipe for the purpose of “provid[ing]
better adhesion at both the pipe/primer interface and the innerwrap/primer
interface and also to coat any irregularities which may be present on the
pipe surface” (col. 1, lines 31-34).
In view of the aforenoted common objective of Wilhelm and
Dempster, we agree with the Examiner’s contention that “one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to
process the steel pipes in a conventional manner, such as shown by
Dempster, prior to applying the respective composite tapes in the method of
Wilhelm” (Answer para. bridging 6 and 7).
The arguments concerning claim 20 correspond to the arguments
concerning claim 16, which are unpersuasive for reasons given above.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wilhelm in view of Dempster.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007