Appeal 2007-1112
Application 10/692,116
composite/plastic cylinders share the advantage of being light.
(Specification at 1).
The Examiner relies upon Haldenby to show that it was known to line
metal cylinders with plastic. The Examiner acknowledges that Haldenby
does not disclose an aluminum cylinder or a composite material overwrap as
required by the claims. (Ex. Ans. at 3). However, the Examiner relies upon
Seal to show an aluminum cylinder having a composite overwrap.
Caudill concedes that “the Examiner has identified one reference that
discloses the use of a plastic coating on the inner side of a steel shell
(Haldenby) and another reference that discloses an aluminum shell having a
composite wrap (Seal).” (Br. at 6). Caudill argues, however, that the
Examiner “has not…indicated where the references teach or suggest such a
combination and, as such, the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case
of obviousness.” (Br. at 6).
We disagree. As demonstrated by Haldenby and Seal, as well as that
prior art discussed in the Specification, the scope of the prior art includes
cylinders for containing gases where the cylinders are aluminum, where the
cylinders are lined with plastic, and where the cylinders are wrapped with a
composite material. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to take the cylinder of Haldenby, substitute aluminum, known to be
a light weight metal as compared to steel, provide an overwrap and therefore
form a lighter weight cylinder (one of the advantages discussed in Seal (See
FF 13) . To the extent Caudill is arguing that there is no explicit suggestion
in the references to combine the prior art teachings of Haldenby and Seal,
Caudill’s argument is misplaced since there is no requirement that an
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013