Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 11
Application No. 08/504,233
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified Maas' hose 10 (i.e., the inflatable tubular
structure) to have included polar windings of a reinforcement
fiber as suggested and taught by Davis. The motivation to
have modified Maas based upon Davis' teachings is to have made
Maas' hose 10 a reusable, inflatable/collapsible mandrel which
can be quickly and easily removed and to have provided an
inflatable mandrel which will maintain a desired thickness and
shape when subjected to varying internal pressures as taught
by Davis.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5-6) that claim 1
requires that the fibers extend solely in a direction
substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis so as to
substantially limit any elongation of the tubular structure so
as not to displace the hydrophone groups along an axis
substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis. The
appellant then goes on to argue that the applied prior art
fails to teach this aspect of the invention. The appellant
also argues (brief, pp. 6-8) that there is no motivation to
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007