Appeal No. 98-2357
Application 08/772,336
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968)).
The examiner also seeks to dismiss the width and
flexibility of the strap relative to the size of the coil's
inner diameter as an obvious matter of engineering design
dependent on the particular application of the strap. We must
point out, however, that the appellant's specification states:
After extended use the coil 22 will sometimes obtain
a semi-permanent stretched position. It has been
found that by pulling the strap 56 through the coil
22, the coil 22 will return to the fully retracted
flattened position. [Pages 8 and 9.]
It is the claimed width and flexibility of the strap relative
to the size of the coil's inner diameter that allows reversal
of the coil and, hence, the problem of semi-permanent stretch
to be solved. This being the case, we do not believe that the
claimed width and flexibility of the strap relative to the
size of the coil's inner diameter can simply be dismissed as a
matter of engineering design as the examiner proposes to do.
Cf. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA
1975).
As to the examiner's conclusion that "if" the inner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007