Appeal No. 96-1901
Application 07/925,790
one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the drum winding mechanism of Parola with one that utilized
opposed convex discs, as is Haines, “because the discs would allow a smaller, more portable
apparatus” (Answer, page 5).
We agree with the examiner that, insofar as the language of the appellant’s claim 2 is
concerned, only the discs are lacking from the Parola disclosure. In Parola, the flexible well pipe is
wrapped several times around a drum, with such multiple wrappings providing the necessary friction for
holding the flexible pipe as it is raised and lowered. According to Parola the prior art conventional
cylindrical drums allowed the flexible pipe to flatten under certain tension and bending-torsional forces,
which constricted the flow therethrough (column 1). Parola solves this problem by providing elastic
mattresses with cellular chambers (16, 17, 18) corresponding to the three turns of the flexible pipe
around the drum, which cushion and support the flexible pipe to prevent flattening (column 3). Parola is
mentioned in the appellant’s specification as an example of the prior art devices over which his invention
is an improvement (specification, page 2).
Haines discloses an apparatus for pulling a long commercial fishing line across a boat. Included
in the system is a sheave comprising a pair of opposed convex discs (39, 41) which are biased toward
one another by a pair of springs (54, 61), and are mounted on an axle (43) rotatable by a motor (23).
In order to maintain a tension on the fishing line, Haines teaches that it is “squeezed between” the discs,
which are “clamped tightly” together by the springs (column 4, lines 10-16). To achieve this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007