Appeal No. 1998-2558 Application No. 08/744,894 We reverse the aforementioned rejection. The examiner characterizes the teachings of Machida as follows: Machida et al. disclose the use of a tubular plastic housing having uniform wall thickness, with endcaps having terminals for electrical connection to an external device, and housing openings which allow cells to be guided along the interior cavity of the closely conforming walls. Embodiments of this tubular plastic housing may have either one (Figure 7) or two (Figure 1) substantially flat wall surfaces. The Machida et al. reference differs from claims 1, 4, and 7 in that it fails to disclose the use of a plastic extrusion process. [Examiner's answer, pp. 4-5.] To account for the limitation in appealed claim 1 that the tubular, plastic, sleeve-shaped housing is "formed by a process consisting of extrusion," the examiner relies on the teachings of Stutzbach. Specifically, the examiner states: Stutzbach et al., however, disclose the manufacture of a battery casing wherein they make use of an "...extruded tubular member of preferable rectangular cross section having upper and lower ends." See column 4, lines 25-35. This tubular member is of uniform wall thickness, serving to "reduce the overall weight of the casing and to minimize material costs." [Id. at p. 5.] The examiner then concludes: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an extrusion method like that of Stutzbach et al. in order to reduce the weight, cost, and complexity of fabricating a casing like that of Machida et al. [Id.] 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007