Appeal No. 2001-0112
Application No. 08/486,494
[the] sheet [7] composed of both axially aligned as
well as circumferentially aligned carbon fibers is
wrapped filling in the spaces between the adjacent
convolutions of the spirally wound reinforcing prepreg
tape material. This inherently forms a rod body having
an inner circumferential surface with protrusive
surface portions (between the spaced prepreg wraps [of
the spirally wound tape]) and notched surface portions
which are filled with circumferentially oriented
reinforcing fibers [of the spirally wound tape] . . . .
The examiner’s position in this regard is based on a
strained and unreasonable interpretation of what constitutes the
inner surface of the rod of Tukihara. Terms in a claim should be
interpreted in a manner consistent with the specification and
construed as those skilled in the art would construe them (see In
re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1990), Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986,
6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, we can
think of no circumstance where the artisan, consistent with the
appellants’ specification, would construe the inner surface of
winding layer 7 of Tukihara’s Figure 7 embodiment as
corresponding to the claimed inner surface of the rod.
Accordingly, we cannot support the examiner’s first theory of
anticipation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007