Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
We disagree with the Examiner’s contention. As correctly pointed out
by Appellant, the resin of Wilhelm is cold cured or photocured (Translation
9). The rationale advanced by the Examiner has no support or explanation
on how heating the metallic core of Wilhelm’s pipe will kick off cure of the
resin in a cold cure resin system or photocurable resin system of the type
disclosed by Wilhelm. The Examiner’s rationale is unacceptably based on
assumption and speculation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wilhelm in view of Dempster.
Claim 23 depends from claim 19, the rejection of which has not been
sustained. Accordingly, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 23 for
the reasons presented above.
OBVIOUSNESS RJECTION OVER WILHELM AND DEMPSTER,
FURTHER IN VIEW OF EITHER FUNATSU, YAMUCHI OR
BETTERIDGE
This rejection only concerns claim 23. As indicated above, claim 23
is dependent on claim 19. Since the rejection of claim 19 has not been
sustained, we again will not sustain the rejection of claim 23 for the reasons
presented above.
OTHER ISSUES
We note that the subject matter of the claim 14 limitation "curing the
composite joint tape to provide hoop reinforcement" is not described in the
Specification as filed. “The claim or claims must conform to the invention as
set forth in the remainder of the Specification and the terms and phrases used
in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so
that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007