Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225
explained how and why one of ordinary skill in the art would
coil the sheet of spherical cavities filled with compressed air
of Hibbert according to the method in Conklin, and arrive at
appellant’s claimed invention.
The examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the tubes of Conklin by the method of Hibbert since using sheets
would make it easier to fill and pack the inside of the tire
resulting in quicker packing of the tire. However, we find this
logic is not supported by the teachings of the references. We
note that the examiner has not explained why the references
themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine their teachings as proposed by the examiner. See In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Lee forms an inflated tube, shown in Figure 1. Each tube
is compressed or indented at intervals, e.g., at b, b of Figure
1. A number of such individual inflated tubes are placed
together in the form a cable and an outer covering D is place
around the formed cable, for example, as shown in Figure 2. The
examiner has not explained how and why one of ordinary skill in
the art would place together sheets of a plurality of spherical
cavities filled with compressed air of Hibbert to form a cable
as set forth in Lee, to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention.
The examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the tubes of Lee by the method of Hibbert since using sheets
would make it easier to fill and pack the inside of the tire,
resulting in quicker packing of the tire. However, we find this
logic is not supported by the teachings of the references, and
again refer to the case of In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d at 1051, 189
USPQ at 147 (CCPA 1976).
In view of the above, we reverse this rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007