Appeal No. 97-2715
Application No. 08/306,797
not sustain the rejection. It follows that the rejection of
dependent claim 2 also will not be sustained.
Another reason for not sustaining this rejection is
grounded in our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner. The
peripheral surfaces of the wheels of the de Rocheprise
apparatus are not flat, and their purpose is not to smooth and
straighten the surface of the tube, but to alter its structure
in such a manner as to cause the inside diameter to increase
as they concurrently cause the tube to move longitudinally.
Therefore, even conceding, arguendo, de Rocheprise to be
analogous art, we are of the opinion that there would have
been no suggestion derived from this reference to modify
Kostner so that it had three rollers instead of two. We are
not persuaded by the examiner’s argument that the mere mention
by Kostner of “one or more rolls” is sufficient. From our
perspective, the only suggestion to combine the references is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007