Ex parte SUNAGA et al. - Page 12




             Appeal No. 1999-0704                                                               Page 12               
             Application No. 08/558,661                                                                               


             have been obvious to mount the line guide of Kelly within a recess as shown by Harada to                 
             increase the surface area between the rod tube and the line guide to increase the joint strength         
             and reduce stress between these two components (answer, pages 5 and 6).  We find no support              
             in the teachings of Kelly and Harada for this contention.                                                
                    Harada discloses a tubular body 1 having projections 2 formed by winding prepreg 5,               
             comprised of carbon or glass fiber impregnated with resin, around a core 3 and sintering it.             
             While Harada does not expressly discuss the role of the tape 4 illustrated in Figures 2-4, we            
             share the appellants' impression (brief, page 9) that the tape 4 is spirally wrapped around a            
             mandrel to form a core 3 and is removed after the prepreg has been wound about the core and              
             sintered, as shown in Figure 4, leaving a tubular body having on the inner surface thereof a             
             spiral recess corresponding to the outside surface formed by the wrapped tape.  The area                 
             between the turns of the recess forms the projections 2.  From our perspective, the only                 
             suggestion for providing the eye and sleeve in the recesses of the tubular body of Harada in the         
             manner proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first               
             viewed the appellants' disclosure.  This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.  See In      
             re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                   
                    Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 22.9                                

                    9We note of interest U.S. Patent No. 5,564,214, issued October 15, 1996 to Tomoyoshi Tsurufuji on 
             application No. 08/318,969, filed October 6, 1994 (prior to the earliest priority date claimed by the appellants under
             35 U.S.C. § 119).  This reference was cited by the examiner in Paper No. 8 and is of record in the application.  The
             embodiment of Figure 6 appears particularly pertinent to the subject matter of claim 22.  This embodiment is
                                                                                              (continued...)          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007