Appeal No. 1997-2942
Application 08/281,958
in the art to obtain a specific characteristic.” We disagree.
The Examiner has not proffered any evidence that even shows
the recognition of the problem being solved by the claimed
invention, let alone a solution of the problem. Redder shows
a rubber conduit 16 which is of a fixed length. There is no
mention of any rotational movement (or twisting) of the
conduit about its axis. Redder’s conduit also does not have
any helical spiral on the surface of the conduit, see figs. 2
and 4. Kramer shows a helical spiral on the surface of
conduit 1, however, there is no rotational movement about its
axis (i.e., twisting). Reuther is used by the Examiner to
show the circular and non-circular grommets at the ends of a
conduit, however, in Reuther, there is no need to twist the
conduit because the grommets are inserted in the corresponding
slots in the panels before the conduit is closed to form and
hold the tubular shape with buttons 54 in the overlapping
flanges 38 (see figs. 1, 2, and 8). Thus, there is a complete
absence of the teaching of the claimed feature of twisting of
the conduit without kinking the conduit.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007