Appeal No. 1998-2558
Application No. 08/744,894
We cannot agree with the examiner's analysis. As pointed
out by the appellant (appeal brief, pages 7 and 10), Machida
does not describe "a tubular, plastic, sleeve-shaped housing
having a uniform wall of cross-section thickness less than 0.7
millimeters throughout its length and formed by a process
consisting of extrusion" as recited in appealed claim 1.
(Emphasis added.) Instead, Machida describes a tubular body
having notches 18, 23, and 24, "a step portion having a bit
increased [sic] inner diameter," and a flange 26. (Column 3,
lines 39-58.) Thus, contrary to the examiner's allegation,
Machida's tubular body does not have a "uniform wall..." as
recited in appealed claim 1 and as defined in the specification
at page 5.
Stutzbach does not make up for the lack of a teaching in
Machida as to a tubular body having a "uniform wall of cross-
section thickness less than 0.7 millimeters throughout its
length." Although Stutzbach teaches an extruded casing wall
member with a "substantially reduced uniform wall thickness"
(column 2, lines 13-18), the examiner has not presented any
evidence to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found the requisite motivation, teaching or
suggestion in the applied prior art to replace the tubular body
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007