Appeal No. 1998-2899
Application No. 08/632,687
Id. at 6.
The appellants argue that there is no motivation for
combining the two embodiments of Fellows so that both a
passage for pressurized air and the claimed means attached to
a low pressure area are provided on the same cylinder. See
brief, pp. 5, 6. We agree.
The embodiments shown in Figures 1 and 4 of Fellows are
so disparate (one uses an undersized sleeve mounted on an
oversized
cylinder by expanding the sleeve with compressed air, the
other uses an undersized cylinder connected to a vacuum source
for securing an oversized sleeve to the cylinder) that we know
of no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine their various features in the
specific manner set forth in claim 32.
Further, even if it had been obvious to modify the
embodiment shown in Figure 4 of Fellows by substituting axial
grooves for the circumferential grooves 26, the modified
structure would still lack the cylinder having an outer
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007