Appeal No. 2000-0693
Application 08/845,282
None of the examiner’s positions persuade us that the
claimed subject matter on appeal here would have been obvious
in light of the teachings of the applied references. In this
regard, we are in substantially agreement with the arguments
made by appellant in the reply brief in response to the
examiner’s positions as set forth in the answer. In
particular, we note, as does appellant, that the tape 51 of JA
‘836 is used solely for the purpose of securing the bundled
filament yarn 49 to the mandrel while curing the bundled
filaments and that thereafter tape 51 is removed and
discarded. Thus, tape 51 does not form any part of the
finished tubular member. Based on the lack of correspondence
between the tape 51 of JA ‘836 and the unillustrated
polytetrafluoroethylene tape mentioned by JA ‘032 on page 11
of the translation at lines 14-19, we conclude that there is
no logical basis for the examiner’s conclusion that “one
skilled in the art would expect it [i.e., the unillustrated
polytetrafluoroethylene tape mentioned of JA ‘032] to be wound
in the manner shown by JA ‘836” (answer, page 5). Moreover,
even if the tape of JA ‘032 was wrapped about the forming
mandrel in the manner shown by JA ‘836 in Figure 6 prior to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007