Ex Parte Kral et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13254177 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/254,177 11/18/2011 Milo Van Landingham Krai 0074-P04823US01/VTP 7193
110 7590 09/26/2017
DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN
1601 MARKET STREET
SUITE 2400
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2307
EXAMINER
BUECHNER, PATRICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3754
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MILO VAN LANDINGHAM KRAL and
CHERUVARI KARTHIK HARI DHARAN
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and GORDON D. KINDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12—16, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 53—56. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as the University of
Canterbury. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated March 14, 2014
(“Final Act.”), as supplemented by the Advisory Action dated July 25, 2014
(“Adv. Act.”).
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A tube construction for use in high temperature
environments, comprising:
a tube comprising a metal alloy;
a first reinforcement layer provided proximal to at least a
portion of the tube,
wherein the first reinforcement layer comprises a
filamentary material;
wherein the filamentary material is provided edge-to-edge
such that there is no gap between adjacent strands of the
filamentary material; and
wherein the material and configuration of the first
reinforcement layer are selected to reduce creep of the tube
construction at temperatures greater than 500° C.
REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, and 53 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki (JP 07—233886;
published Sept. 5, 1995)4 and Ingerslev (US 3,856,053; issued Dec. 24,
1974).
3 The rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has
been overcome by Appellants, and therefore, we consider the Examiner’s
rejection withdrawn. See Adv. Act. 2.
4 We rely on the English language, computer translation of Nobuyuki, as
provided in the record.
2
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
II. Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Ouden (US 5,195,675; issued
March 23, 1993).
III. Claims 14, 54, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Dixon (US 6,429,402 Bl;
issued Aug. 6, 2002).
IV. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyuki and Ingerslev, and De Ganahl (US 2,742,931;
issued Apr. 24, 1956), Inoue (US 4,039,006; issued Aug. 2, 1977), or
Creedon (US 4,693,281; issued Sept. 15, 1987).
V. Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Bennett (US 1,802,695; issued
Apr. 28, 1931).
VI. Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, Bennett, and Dixon.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, and 53 as a
group. Appeal Br. 18. We select independent claim 1 as a representative
claim, and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 23, and 53 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Nobuyuki’s welded padded layer W corresponds to the claimed first
3
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
reinforcement layer comprising a filamentary material. Final Act. 3 (citing
Nobuyuki, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner also finds that Nobuyuki fails to
disclose that the filamentary material (i.e., Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer
W) is “provided edge-to-edge such that there is no gap between adjacent
strands of the filamentary material,” as claimed, and relies on Ingerslev for
disclosing such a configuration. Id. (citing Ingerslev 1:38-44). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to provide the
filamentary material of Nobuyuki in an edge-to-edge configuration, as
taught by Ingerslev, so that the filamentary material effectively reinforces
the [tube] and prevents rupture thereof.” Id. (citing Ingerslev 2:10-11).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner erred by relying on
Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W as a filamentary material as claimed.
Appeal Br. 11. In support, Appellants submit that Nobuyuki’s welding
padded layer “is not a ‘fiber/thread/wire’ . . . and cannot have the form of
‘strands,’” because Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer is “melted directly
onto the pipe surface.” Id.', see also id. (Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer
“is not a filamentary material at all, but is a built-up quantity of material that
is welded into the outer surface of the pipe.”); see also Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner responds that Nobuyuki’s Figure 1 depicts Nobuyuki’s
welding padded layer in “the form of a fiber/thread/wire.” Ans. 10.
Appellants reply that
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that [a
weld bead, as disclosed in Nobuyuki] is formed by melting a
material (e.g. a weld electrode) and a portion of the outer surface
of the pipe, such that the melted materials combine and
4
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
cool/solidify to form a raised region on the pipe surface that is an
integral part of the pipe itself. The weld is never present as a
separate wire or filament . . . and does not have the form of a
fiber/thread/ wire.
Reply Br. 2—3.
During patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, with claim
language being read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As set forth supra, Claim 1 recites that
“the first reinforcement layer comprises a filamentary material” and further,
that “there is no gap between adjacent strands of the filamentary material.”
(emphasis added).
The Specification discloses that
[i]n one embodiment the reinforcement material comprises a
refractory material ... in filamentary form which may, for
example, be in wire form wound around the outside of the metal
alloy tube. Alternatively, the reinforcement material may be in
mesh or woven form or other sheet form. Where the
reinforcement material comprises a filamentary reinforcement
around the tube, the filament(s) may be wound around the tube.
Spec., p. 1,1. 32 to p. 2,1. 5 (emphasis added).
We determine that the claim term “filamentary” means (consistent
with the Specification) “having the characteristics of a filament: formed by
or consisting of filaments.”). Thus, to meet the limitations recited in claim
1, Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W does not need to be a filament; all
that is required is that Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W has the
5
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
characteristics of a filament. We accept Appellants’ definition of a filament
as (consistent with the Specification) “a thin fiber/thread/wire.” Appeal Br.
11. Thus, Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W must have the characteristics
of a thin fiber/thread/wire to meet the “filamentary material” limitation of
claim 1.
Nobuyuki describes and depicts welding padded layer W in “various
designs” and “patterns,” including a “linear shape” or in a shape “formed
spirally” about the tube. Nobuyuki || 8, 9, Figs. 1, 2. Thus, we determine
that Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W comprises filamentary material, as
recited in independent claim 1, because the linear and spiral shapes of
Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W have the characteristics of a thin wire,
in that the linear and spiral shapes of Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W
are provided as thin, long shapes of material, which are either linearly or
spirally arranged on the tube, similar to a wire form. Further, segments of
the linear and spiral shapes of Noboyuki’s material may be interpreted as
strands.5
Appellants argue that Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W cannot
comprise filamentary material because Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W
is welded onto the tube. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument, because Nobuyuki’s welding padded
layer W meets the definition of “filamentary material,” as discussed supra,
and there is no limitation recited in claim 1 that excludes the filamentary
The claim term “strand” does not appear in the Specification.
6
5
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
material from being welded to (or otherwise attached) the tube. Thus,
Appellants are arguing a limitation that is not recited in claim 1. Unclaimed
features cannot impart patentability to claims. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Arguments must be commensurate in scope
with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982).
Appellants also argue that Nobuyuki’s tube is “not physically
combinable” with Ingerslev’s pipeline structure. Appeal Br. 12. In
particular, Appellants submit that Nobuyuki’s tube “is resistant to high-
temperature elongation deformation (i.e., creep),” whereas Ingerslev’s
pipeline structure “is configured to withstand high internal pressures at
low temperatures, and is not suitable for high-temperature applications
because of the presence of an internal plastic membrane . . ., a heat-
insulating material. .., and an outer shell.. . .” Id. (citing Ingerslev 1:36—
38, 50-54). Appellants conclude that “the pipes described in these two
references are not combinable because they are designed to operate in
different temperature regimes.” Id. at 12.
However, the Examiner’s proposed modification does not involve
modifying Nobuyuki’s tube (or pipe) to include plastic materials, for
example, that cannot withstand high temperatures, as disclosed in Ingerslev.
The Examiner’s proposed modification involves modifying Nobuyuki’s
spirally shaped welding padded layer W to have an edge-to-edge
configuration, as claimed, and as taught by Ingerslev. See Ingerslev 1:42-44
(“coiled wire 14 is wound spirally around the longitudinal wires 13, with the
7
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
coils thereof in contact with each other, as shown in FIG. 2.”). Further, as
correctly determined by the Examiner,
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
Ans. 10 (quoting In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal
citations omitted). Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to modify
Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W, which Nobuyuki discloses may have
various designs and patterns, to have an edge-to-edge configuration, as
taught by Ingerslev, to effectively reinforce Nobuyuki’s tube.
Appellants further argue that “there is no suggestion or motivation in
the art to apply the configuration of an edge-to-edge winding layer of a
wire material... to generate an edge-to-edge welding pattern on a pipe
surface.” Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4—5. However, such an argument
appears to be holding the Examiner to the old TSM (teaching, suggestion, or
motivation) standard; such a standard is not required. KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007).
Moreover, although a conclusion of obviousness must be supported by
findings and analysis establishing a reason to combine the known elements
in the manner required in the claim at issue, the analysis “need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
8
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Appellants’ argument does
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been
obvious to modify Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W, in view of
Nobuyuki’s disclosure of the desirability of using various designs and
patterns for a reinforcement layer, to have an edge-to-edge configuration, as
taught by Ingerslev, which is a reference directed to “new and useful
improvements in the constructions of pipes,” to effectively reinforce
Nobuyuki’s tube. Ingerslev 1:1—3.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification
“would result in a surface-covering layer of welded material on a pipe,
and not a tube having a wound filamentary reinforcement layer,” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4 (“adjacent beads of the weld
material and a portion of the pipe surface would all melt, mix and solidity
together as a unitary solid mass during the proposed formation procedure”).
However, Figures 1,2-1, and 2-2 depict the cross-sectional shape of
Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W as hemispherical. Appellants have not
provided sufficient evidence that providing a helical segment of the welding
padded layer W, as depicted in Nobuyuki’s Figure 1, “edge-to-edge” with
another segment, as the welding padded layer W is applied with a
hemispherical cross-section in the shape of a spiral about the tube, would
destroy the filamentary nature of the welding padded layer W, by resulting,
for example, in a uniform covering of a layer of welded material on the pipe.
9
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Next, Appellants argue that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the resistance to creep in [Nobuyuki’s] pipe . . . arises from
the adherence of the spaced-apart weldment to the outer surface of the
pipe, and would not look to modify such pipe with the edge-to-edge non­
adherent filamentary winding configuration of [Ingerslev’s] low-
temperature pressure-resistance pipe ... to improve high-temperature
creep resistance.” Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 14—15 (arguing “one of
ordinary skill in the art would not look to combine these references” because
Nobuyuki “addresses the problem of high-temperature creep, which is a
time-dependent plasticity under a fixed stress at an elevated temperature
that can occur at or below the yield stress of a material” whereas Ingerslev
“discloses a pipe with low-temperature pressure-resistance, where such
pressure resistance is based on time-dependent yield strength that depends
directly on applied stresses.”); see also Reply Br. 6. Appellants conclude
that the Examiner improperly relied on hindsight, because the references
“describe different solutions to different problems.” Appeal Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Both Nobuyuki and
Ingerslev are directed to reinforcement layers for strengthening pipes, such
that one skilled in the art would consider the references, as a whole, for all
that they teach. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898,
907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference must be considered for everything it
teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it
is describing and attempting to protect.”). Nobuyuki addresses
strengthening a tube by forming welding padded layer W on the tube’s
10
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
outside surface in various designs or pattern, rather than (expensively)
increasing the thickness of the tube’s wall. Nobuyuki Abstract, || 3—5, 8.
Ingerslev teaches that coiled wires 14 in contact with each other is one
example of designing filamentary material (i.e., wires) to strengthen a
pipeline structure. See e.g., Ingerslev 1:1—10. Thus, even though Nobuyuki
and Ingerslev address different problems relating to pipes (i.e., creep due to
high temperatures verses rupture due to high pressures), we determine the
Examiner’s rationale (i.e., effectively reinforcing a tube) has sufficient
factual underpinnings from the references, such that the Examiner did not
impermissibly rely on hindsight.
Appellants also submit that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would “change the principle operation” of Nobuyuki’s tube by “replacing an
adherent spaced-apart weld material with a close-wound non-adherent
filamentary layer.” Id. at 13—14. This argument, however, does not address
the modification proposed by the Examiner, which is not to substitute
Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W with Ingerslev’s wire 13, but to modify
the spiral shape of Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W, such that segments
of the welding padded layer W are in edge-to-edge contact as the welding
padded layer W spirals about the tube. See Final Act. 4 (“It would have
been obvious ... to provide the filamentary material of Nobuyuki in an
edge-to-edge configuration, as taught by Ingerslev”). In other words,
Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence that Nobuyuki’s welding
padded layer W would no longer operate as a pipe reinforced by a welding
padded layer W, in view of the Examiner’s proposed modification.
11
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Appellants further argue that Nobuyuki “teaches away” from
modifying the welding padded layer W, as disclosed by Ingerslev, because
Nobuyuki states that “the advantage of the spaced-apart spiral application of
the welded overlay is to efficiently and cost-effectively reduce deformation
by selectively building up the welding on only a required portion of the
pipe surface and efficiently making the reinforcing effect, reducing the
welding materials as much as possible.” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Nobuyuki
Tflf 5, 8). Appellants submit that the Examiner’s proposed modification
“would be the least cost-effective and require the maximum amount of
welding materials.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Although Nobuyuki
teaches that a reduction in welding materials is desirable, Nobuyuki also
discloses flexibility in design, as disclosed supra, such that the welding
padded layer W, as modified by Ingerslev, may be applied, for example,
“selectively” to the tube to conserve welding materials (i.e., not along the
entire length of the tube), the most important point being the avoidance of a
unnecessarily thick tube wall. See, e.g., Nobuyuki 110. Thus, we do not
agree that Nobuyuki teaches away from providing adjacent strands of
welding padded layer W in edge-to-edge contact.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki and
Ingerslev, and claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 53 fall therewith.
12
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Rejection II
Dependent claim 8
Claim 8, which depends from claim, further requires the first
reinforcement layer to be “provided within a wall of the tube.” Appeal Br.
A—1 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines Nobuyuki, as modified by
Ingerslev, fails to disclose the limitation of claim 8 and relies on Ouden for
disclosing “that such configurations are obvious variants.” Final Act. 6
(citing Ouden, Figs. 1, 2). We understand the Examiner’s modification to be
that it would be obvious to provide Nobuyuki’s welding padded layer W, as
modified by Ingerslev to be edge-to-edge, within Nobuyuki’s tube, in view
of Ouden’s teaching (see Figure 2), as an obvious variant.
First, Appellants argue that “because the feature of at least partially
embedding the wires in the outer surface of the pipe,” as described in Ouden,
“would not work with a close-wound wire configuration,” as described in
Ingerslev, because “the close-wound wire structure would preclude the
application of a weld 4 over the wires.” Appeal Br. 19. However, the
Examiner is not proposing to include weld 4 in the proposed modification.
Second, Appellants correctly argue that “the application of a
weldment material over partially-embedded wires,” as described in Ouden,
“is not the same as providing a first reinforcement layer provided within a
wall of the tube, as recited in claim 8.” Appeal Br. 19. Indeed, Figure 1 of
Ouden depicts reinforcement wire (i.e., core 2, ceramic layer 3) “fixed to the
outer surface of pipe 1” by weld 4. Ouden 2:31—37, Fig. 1.
13
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Notwithstanding, Figure 2 of Ouden depicts the reinforcement layer as
being “placed at least partially underneath the outer surface of the pipe,” for
example, “channels can be provided in advance” or “the reinforcement can
also be fused into the pipe 1 [wherein] outer wall 1 melts locally and the
reinforcement is drawn into this melt.” Id. 2:44—52, Fig. 2. Cf. Spec. 5 (as
amended on December 23, 2013) (“The tubes 1 may also be manufactured
by co-extrusion, by passing the reinforcement winding or wrapping 5
through an extrusion die as the metal alloy tube 1 is extruded, so that the
reinforcement 5 is encased within the metal material of the tube wall, as
illustrated in FIG. 4”). Appellants’ argument does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s finding that Ouden’s Figure 2 depicts the reinforcement
layer “provided within a wall of the tube,” as recited in claim 8. Moreover,
Ouden’s disclosure supports the conclusion that Nobuyuki’s welding padded
layer W is within the wall of Nobuyuki’s tube, without further modification,
because the tube melts locally during provision of the welding padded layer
W.
Appellants also argue that Ouden fails to cure the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to independent claim 1;
however, for the reasons set forth supra, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings or reasoning contain
errors.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Ouden.
14
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
Dependent claim 13
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claim 13 apart from arguing that Ouden fails to cure the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to independent claim 1;
however, for the reasons set forth supra, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings or reasoning as applied
to claim 1 contain errors. Appeal Br. 18—19.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Ouden.
Rejection III
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 14, 54, and 55 apart from arguing that Dixon fails to cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to
independent claim 1; however, for the reasons set forth supra, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning as applied to claim 1 contain errors. Appeal Br. 18—19.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 54,
and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev,
and Ouden.
Rejection IV
Claim 16, which depends from claim 12, which depends from
independent claim 1, and recites, in relevant part, “a third reinforcement
layer provided in a filamentary form that is wound around at least a portion
of the tube, wherein windings of the third reinforcement layer are provided
15
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
edge-to-edge and proximal to at least one of the first reinforcement layer or
the second reinforcement layer.” Appeal Br. A-2 (Claims App.). Claim 12
requires a second reinforcement layer. See id.
The Examiner finds that Nobuyuki, as modified by Ingerslev,
discloses the claimed subject matter, except for a third layer, and the
Examiner relies on each of De Ganahl, Inoue, and Creedon, for such
disclosure. Final Act. 8 (citations omitted). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious
to add a third reinforcing layer having an edge-to-edge
construction taught by Ingerslev to the tube of Nouyuki as
modified by Ingerslev, in the manner taught by De Ganahl,
Inoue, and Creedon, since adding another reinforcement layer
inherently adds additional reinforcement, which may be desired
in situations that require additional reinforcement, such as high
pressure applications.
Id. at 7—8. The Examiner relies on Ingerslev for disclosing the second
reinforcement layer, as recited in claim 12, and Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 5 (citing Ingerslev, Figs. 1, 2, 1:38—44);
Appeal Br. 10-17.
Appellants argue that because De Ganahl, Inoue, and Creedon each
address “a material problem (pressure-induced leakage, rotational
delamination, and pressure resistance) that is distinct from the problem of
reducing high-temperature creep,” as addressed in Nobuyuki, “one skilled in
the art would not look to these references.” Appeal Br. 21. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument, because each reference is related to
providing a reinforcement layer(s) to a pipe for strengthening certain
16
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
characteristics of the pipe. Further, the Examiner relies on these references
for teaching an additional welding padded layer W in the tube construction
of Nobuyuki, which already incorporates two welding padded layers W, in
view of the Examiners’ proposed modification with respect to claim 12,
which Appellants do not dispute.
Appellants also argue that De Ganahl, Inoue, and Creedon each fail to
cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect
to independent claim 1; however, for the reasons set forth supra, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning as applied to claim 1 contain errors. Appeal Br. 21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Ganahl, Inoue, or Creedon.
Rejections V and VI
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 18, 24, and 56 apart from arguing that neither Bennett nor Dixon cure
the deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to
independent claim 1; however, for the reasons set forth supra, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings or
reasoning as applied to claim 1 contain errors. Appeal Br. 22—23.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nobuyuki, Ingerslev, and Bennett.
17
Appeal 2016-000531
Application 13/254,177
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 6—10, 12—16, 18, 19, 23, 24,
and 53—56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18