Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
cable or wire and that includes a series of spaced-apart, longitudinally disposed, radially
outwardly extending ribs (66) integrally molded with the tube wall and extending from the
wall such that a thickness of the individual ribs exceeds the thickness of the tube wall. What
the examiner finds lacking in Bass is any teaching that the tube portion (33) have a
generally elliptical configuration, as is required of the pay-out tube defined in claim 17 on
appeal.
To address that deficiency in Bass, the examiner looks to Newman, noting that it teaches
a pay-out tube for cable or wire arranged in a container in a figure-8 configuration, wherein
the tube portion (8) has an elliptical (oval) configuration so as to better fit the space provided
in the coil of figure-8 wound material in the container. From the combined teachings of Bass
and Newman, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to make the cross-section of the tube
portion (33) of Bass elliptical as taught by Newman so as to adapt it to better fit the space
provided within the coil of figure-8 wound cable therein.
We agree with the examiner. Contrary to appellants’ argument in the brief (page 12-13),
the ribs (66) of Bass meet the terms of claims 17 through 19 on appeal, i.e. they provide a
series of spaced-apart, non-intersecting, longitudinally disposed, radially outwardly
extending ribs integrally molded with the tube wall and extending from the wall such that a
thickness of the individual ribs exceeds the thickness of the tube wall. Appellants’ assertions
regarding the fact that other ribs (67) intersect individual ribs (66) at right angles to the ribs
(66), is of no moment, since the open-ended “comprising” language of claim 17 does not
exclude other ribs from being part of the tube portion. As for the argument that there is no
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007