Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
the examiner concedes that Kewin does not disclose an end
member
14 having an inner annular surface 36 at the lug end of the
end member that is continuous and of constant radius around
the circumference thereof, as called for in the appealed
claims. Nevertheless, the examiner contends that it would
have been obvious to make the inner annular surface of Kewin’s
end member continuous and of constant radius around the
circumference thereof because
chucks having a continuous, constant radius outer
circumferential surface which may or may not be
expandable or mandrels having such surfaces are old
and well known in the art, and to make the inner
circumferential surface of the end members of Kewin
conform to the shape of the chucks or mandrels used
to support the core would have obviously followed
especially in view of the teaching of Bushell et al.
[Answer, page 3.]
Assuming for the sake of argument that expandable chucks
having a continuous, constant radius outer circumferential
surface are “old and well known in the art” as asserted by the
examiner, it is not apparent to us why it would have
“obviously followed” to provide the inner annular surface of
Kewin’s end member with a continuous, constant radius inner
annular surface to “conform” to the shape of such old and well
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007