Appeal No. 1999-2062 Page 6
Application No. 08/928,311
In the answer (Paper No. 9, mailed January 22, 1999), the
examiner response to the above-noted arguments of the
appellants was that
Hunt does not disclose is the exact configuration or size
of the treads on the external body portion. However, the
exact configuration or size of the treads is an article
design consideration only and not further limiting to the
manufacturing process. That is, as long as it is known to
form treads on the surface, the process step is met
except for the specific type of tread formed and this
does not present patentability in a process claim.
Concerning the particular formula used by appellants
to determine the spacing between the treads, it should be
noted that this too is an article design consideration
and does not further patentably limit the process step of
forming treads on the surface. Appellants cannot possibly
expect patentability to be found in a manufacturing
process every time a tread design is changed to
accommodate a particular environment in which a roll is
being used.
The arguments presented by appellants regarding the
patentable features of claim 26 are also not persuasive
basically for the reasons given above. Furthermore,
increasing the radial projections in one direction or the
other is an article design consideration only once it is
known to provide radial projections or treads on the
surface as in Hunt.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007