Appeal No. 2006-0822
Application No. 10/054,253
binding rings 3 at their inner rims. In the Figure 4 embodiment, the binding rings
are made of steel plate rings (col. 2, ll. 5-7). As explained in the last full paragraph
in column 2, the binding rings or part of the binding rings can be made of an elastic
material, such as rubber or synthetic rubber. In Figures 9 and 11, inner ring 14 is
reinforced with metal ring 15, which has been vulcanized to elastic part 14.
Noting that Teeri discloses metal (steel) as the material for the spacer
(binding ring 2), the examiner’s position in rejecting claim 16 is that Teeri’s metal
binding ring is plastically compressible since it is an inherent property of metal to
be plastically compressible when the amount of force being applied has exceeded
the elasticity of the metal (answer, p. 4). The examiner (answer, p. 7) adds that
rubber and metal, the two materials mentioned by Teeri for the binding rings, are
both plastically compressible.
The appellant argues that there is no disclosure that the binding rings of
Teeri are made of plastically compressible material, as recited in claim 16, or that
adjustment of such binding rings by a force is desirable. In fact, the appellant
notes that the binding rings of Teeri are described as being elastic (col. 2, ll. 57-60,
in the case of rubber rings) and depicted as rigid (Figures 4 and 6) but not as being
plastically deformable or adjustable (brief, pp. 4 and 5).
On page 3 of the reply brief, the appellant argues that, even if the binding
rings may be made of metal, and an inherent property of metal is its plastic
compressibility, there is no disclosure in Teeri that Teeri’s binding rings will
plastically compress in an axial direction, much less that they will always compress
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007