Appeal No. 2002-1764 Page 6
Application No. 09/359,752
approach involves a single-piece solid rod of, for example, fiberglass and Okada’s
approach involves tubular rods formed of wrapped prepreg layers of fiber-reinforced
resin. As such, the combined teachings of Herber and Okada would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to select one of these approaches and would not, in our opinion,
have suggested the combination of a solid core and a surrounding layer or layers of
prepreg material. Cosby does evidence that the concept of a solid steel core
surrounded by layers of different materials was known in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention but provides no teaching or suggestion, either alone or in
combination with Herber and Okada, to use fiber-reinforced resin for such surrounding
layers over a steel core.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the combined teachings of Okada,
Herber and Cosby would not have suggested the invention recited in claims 1-3. The
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 is thus reversed.
The additional teachings of Kusumoto and Hogarth, both of which are directed to
tubular shafts without solid cores, do not cure the above-discussed deficiency in the
combination of Okada, Herber and Cosby. It thus follows that the rejections of
independent claim 4, which also calls for a solid rod comprising a solid-state core
member and an outer layer formed of fiber reinforced resin, and claims 5-22, which
depend from claims 1-4, must also be reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007