Appeal No. 95-0072
Application 07/922,796
assessment, the examiner concludes, "[I]t would have been obvious
. . . to provide separate admission and pre-filling channels,
since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral
structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the
art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 [(Bd. Pat. Int.
1969)]" (answer, p. 4). The examiner additionally observes,
[T]he entry 22 taught by Ollis performs the dual
function of (1) receiving loose strands and (2)
receiving filling compound from a bypass channel 30.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to have separated the entry
22 taught by Ollis into (1) a funnel-shaped entry for
receiving loose strands, and (2) a pre-filling chamber
for receiving filling compound from bypass channel 30
[answer, p. 6].
Claims 10, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Ollis in view of Allan. Rather than
reiterate the examiner’s statement of this rejection, we direct
attention to pages 4-5 of the answer.
We shall not sustain these rejections. As the appellants
have correctly argued (brief, pp. 8-9), Ollis simply teaches a
funnel-shaped, i.e., conical, entrance 22 to a cylinder opening
or bore 24. The funnel-shaped opening of Ollis neither
corresponds to nor renders obvious, within the meaning of § 103,
the admission channel and pre-filling chamber structure recited
in detail in claim 1, from which all of the other claims on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007