Appeal No. 97-4084
Application 08/330,672
While we are in agreement with the examiner as to
many of his findings of fact with respect to the Lancelot
reference, we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant
that there is no motivation in the applied prior art or a
convincing line of reasoning from the examiner that would have
suggested the combination of Lancelot and the Titus disclo-
sure. The examiner can point to no express or implied teach-
ing in the prior art, and the examiner's reasoning with re-
spect to compressive strength found on page 5 of the Exam-
iner's Answer is not convincing. It is clear to us that the
connector disclosed in Lancelot is designed to carry tensile
forces from one concrete reinforcement bar to the other. The
teaching of Titus of improving the
compressive strength of an oil well sucker rod or an oil well
casing simply does not transfer over to the problem that
concerns Lancelot. Having found that the examiner's rejection
claim 10 as calling for a laminated structure comprising a
first layer made from a member of a group consisting of metal,
plastic, ceramic, and wood, and a second layer made from a
member of a group consisting of metal, plastic, ceramic and
wood differing in composition from the first layer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007