Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 10
Application No. 08/504,233
are oriented in a direction substantially parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the member 100, and a third layer of
filaments 307 which
are spirally wound in the second direction 206.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that Maas
discloses substantially all claimed elements except that it
fails to show the means for preventing longitudinal expansion
of the mandrel as set forth in claim 1. With regard to this
difference, the examiner then determined that providing Maas's
air mandrel with longitudinal fibers would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of
either Boxmeyer or Davis.
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007