Appeal No. 1999-2665
Application No. 08/826,816
interest to the examiner is the Figure 5 embodiment, wherein
one side of the bobbin or mandrel is provided with a pair of
lands or ridges extending along the full length thereof.
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner contends that it would have been obvious in view of
Sauber and Bachi
to provide the filament retention means of Ota with
means for absorbing compressive forces caused by
contraction of the line on the core, wherein the
means includes a plurality of deformable crush ribs
extending outwardly from the core and spaced apart
relative to the core, and wherein the core, flanges,
and ribs are integrally molded in one piece from a
plastic material, in order to facilitate filament
retention and prevent damage to the filament line
and/or spool as well as facilitate manufacture of
the spool. [Final rejection, pages 4-5.]
Appellants argue as a threshold issue that Sauber
constitutes non-analogous art; however, even assuming arguendo
that Sauber is analogous art, and further that Sauber suggests
providing shock absorbing means on the core of Ota’s spool,
the rejection is not sustainable. Independent claim 1 calls
for the core of the spool and the shock absorbing means to be
“integrally molded in one piece from a plastic material,” and
independent claim 9 contains similar limitations. As noted
above, Sauber teaches that tension absorbing rollers 26 should
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007