Appeal No. 2005-0777
Application No. 10/081,881
longitudinal axial direction with a roller, with axle inserted
therein, in the groove and fixed by fittings 3 (Answer, page 4,
citing Figure 9).
The examiner recognizes that neither Hahn nor Kataoka
disclose a deformable tube of soft vinyl (Answer, page 4, first
line; page 5, first line). The examiner finds that the admitted
prior art teaches use of a rubber cord 82 “which can be
deformable” (Answer, pages 4-6, citing the specification, page 3,
l. 31). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellants’ invention “to use a deformable tube of
soft vinyl” in the apparatus of Hahn or Kataoka since the
admitted prior art teaches the use of a “soft material” and such
a soft material “would function in a substantially equivalent
manner in the claimed invention to prolong the life of [sic]
expectancy of the tube and avoid damage to the wound material.”
Answer, page 4 (see also pages 5 and 6). The examiner further
concludes that the “use of vinyl rather than rubber would have
been an obvious choice of design” since there is no particular
disclosed criticality to the material and either would function
in substantially the same way (Answer, pages 4-6). We disagree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007