Appeal No. 2001-0112
Application No. 08/486,494
are utilized, and a Figures 6(a)-6(b) embodiment wherein a
plurality of prepreg sheets having fibers oriented respectively
in the longitudinal direction and the circumferential direction
are employed. Finally, Figure 7 illustrates a “still further
embodiment” (column 2, lines 59-60). Although not further
described in the specification, it appears that this drawing
figure corresponds to the situation described at column 4, lines
9-13, where an additional pattern winding is applied to the butt
end region of the rod.
Insofar as we can determine, the examiner has advanced
alternate theories of anticipation. The examiner’s first theory
of anticipation is set forth in the paragraph spanning pages
3 and 4 of the answer and is based on Tukihara’s Figure
7 embodiment, wherein a prepreg tape is spirally wound about a
mandrel, whereafter a pattern winding 7 having reinforcing fibers
running in both axial and circumferential directions is applied
thereover at the butt end of the rod. This theory of
anticipation appears to be premised on considering the inner
surface of the winding layer 7 as corresponding to the claimed
inner circumferential surface of the rod. According to the
examiner (answer, page 4), the appealed claims would then read on
the Figure 7 construction because
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007