Appeal No. 2006-1436
Application No. 10/461,817
executed by Dr. Wolfgang Issel, which was
also submitted with the response dated
December 3, 2004, specifically traversing the
Examiner’s position that the mesh sheath (15)
of Recla is substantively hard and the
Examiner’s position that “the outer layer,
while generally flexible, may be considered
at least locally hard and pressure resistant
as in the instant invention outer tube” (page
3 of the Office action dated September 3,
2004).
The tube of Recla is definitely based upon
Issel (U.S. Patent No. 4,735,095) (“patented
design construction” column 3, line 30 of
Recla).
Accordingly, Dr. Issel is a competent expert
in providing conclusions about the tube. Dr.
Issel clearly stated that the mesh sheath of
Recla is neither pressure-resistant nor is it
hard as recited in the claims of the instant
application (see both declarations signed by
Dr. Issel).
In conclusion, appellant argues (brief, page 10), “the
declarations are of more relevance than the Examiner’s
conclusions and are more than sufficient to overcome the
rejections over Recla.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007