Appeal No. 2001-0112
Application No. 08/486,494
The examiner’s alternate theory of anticipation appears to
be based on considering the inner surface of the spirally wound
prepreg tape layer 5’ of Figure 4(a) as corresponding to the
claimed inner surface of the rod. The examiner explains:
The inner surface [of the rod] may also be considered
to be the inner surface of the [spirally wound] prepreg
layer [5’] where adjacent prepreg tape wraps partially
overlap their neighbors. This structure would
necessarily form a stepped inner surface in which the
adjacent tape convolution cannot completely fill and
form a perfectly smooth inner surface thereby
inherently forming protrusions and notches in the inner
surface of this layer. Moreover, this prepreg layer
may be the innermost layer of all of the layers . . .
of the fishing rod as is clearly set forth in column 3,
lines 23-31 [of Tukihara] . . . . [Answer, page 6.]
The examiner’s alternate theory lacks any reasonable support
in Tukihara and is based on speculation and conjecture.
Concerning layer 5’, we note column 3, lines 27-31, of Tukihara
where it is stated that “prepreg tape 5’ may be wound on the
mandrel 4 in advance as shown in FIG. 4(a) . . . [t]hen, a
prepreg tape 5 is wound to form the rod as shown in FIGS. 2 and
3” (emphasis added). Based on this description, we consider
layer 5’ to be an additional layer separate and distinct from the
prepreg tape described at column 1, lines 55-58, which prepreg
tape is at the heart of Tukihara’s invention. Accordingly, it is
not clear to what extent tape layers 5 and 5’ share the same
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007