Appeal No. 98-0806
Application No. 08/693,588
consistent with the specification and construed as those
skilled in the art would construe them (In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Specialty
Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601,
1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, we can think of no
circumstances under which the artisan, consistent with the
appellant's specification, would construe the link 26 of
McMichael as corresponding to the claimed step of, or means
for, tying. This being the case we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
the combined teachings of Fritzberg, Bellows and McMichael.
Turning to the rejection of claims 13-16, 18-20, 23 and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Fritzberg in view of Bellows and McMichael, the examiner
considers that it would further have been obvious to provide
the core of Fritzberg with a reinforcing jacket in view of the
teachings of McMichael. The appellant concedes that McMichael
teaches that the rubber wall 19c or jacket surrounding the
core 19b is "tough, flexible and resistant to the action of
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007