Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
during bending of the strength element” (Gruhn, col. 5, l. 12-
14) by reducing the minimum bending radius of the strength
element (Gruhn, col. 5, l. 23-24). In light of Gruhn’s design
to increase the resistance of the fiber reinforced polymeric
strength element to breakage during bending, we find that
persons having ordinary skill in the art reasonably would not
have further drawn an integrally formed fiber reinforced
polymeric strength element to from about 3.4 to 7.0 times its
original length, and preferably from about 3.5 to 4.7 times
its original length and expect the element to retain its
resistance to breakage during bending.
3. Rejection under § 103 over Spencer or Gruhn
in view of McKay (‘363) or McKay (‘749)
We agree with the examiner’s conclusion that subject
matter encompassed by Claims 2-4 and 8-10 is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view the combined teachings of
Spencer or Gruhn and McKay (‘363) or McKay (‘749). However,
our reasons for affirming the rejection differ significantly
from the examiner’s explanation of the rejection. We rely
exclusively on the teaching of McKay (‘363) or McKay (‘749).
Accordingly, while we affirm the examiner’s holding of
unpatentability under section 103 in view of prior art
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007