Appeal No. 98-0806
Application No. 08/693,588
air and water" (see McMichael, page 2, column 1, lines 64-66)
but nevertheless urges that the examiner has not identified
any motive or suggestion in the art for modifying the
disclosure of Fritzberg in view of this teaching. We must
point out, however, that McMichael (page 2, column 1, lines
54-58) expressly teaches that such a rubber wall or
reinforcing jacket is provided for the purpose of obtaining
"adequate compressibility" of the core and "yet assure the
desired resistance to wear." Accordingly, one of ordinary
skill in this art would have been motivated to provide the
core of Fritzberg with a rubber reinforcing jacket as taught
by McMichael in order to achieve McMichael's expressly stated
advantage of assuring the desired resistance to wear while at
the same time obtaining adequate compressibility of the core.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 13-16, 18-
20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined
teachings of Fritzberg, Bellows and McMichael.
Considering last the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claim 9 as being unpatentable over Fritzberg in view of
Bellows and claim 21 as being unpatentable over Fritzberg in
view of Bellows and McMichael, these two claims each expressly
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007