Appeal No. 2005-1126
Application No. 09/846,141
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id.
In the present case, the examiner has not advanced any
evidentiary support for the proposition that it would have been
obvious to modify the Francois tube/rod 10 by the addition of
fibers oriented at 0°±15° with respect to the longitudinal axis
of the rod. The passage from the Francois reference noted by the
examiner (which for the most part is reproduced above) lacks any
suggestion for this modification and fails to substantiate the
examiner’s assertions about the spring rate and strength of
filament-wound structures.
Since Andersen does not cure the foregoing evidentiary
shortcomings of Francois, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 8, and dependent claims
3, 4, 9 through 11, 14/2, 15/2, 16/2, 17 and 18, as being
unpatentable over Francois in view of Andersen.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 12 and 13, which depend from independent
claim 5, as being unpatentable over Francois in view of Andersen.
Claims 12 and 13 respectively recite a stabilizer bar having
fibers oriented at 0°±10° and 0°±5° with respect to the axis of
the rod. For the reasons discussed above, the combined teachings
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007