Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/068,243
(brief, page 6) that claims 7 and 10 stand or fall together. The
examiner’s rejection can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the answer.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 6) that Thompson does not
show a roller fabricated from a polymeric material, but rather a
roller that has a polymeric part. It is argued (brief, page 7)
that “[i]n particular, Thompson et al, teaches that his polymer
is not capable of supporting the weights borne by rollers”
because of the disclosure that “with increasing load, the tire is
locally flattened to the limiting radial extent R1 minus R2,
whereupon all further increments of load are sustained by flange
surfaces 15 alone.” It is additionally argued (id.) that
Thompson does not disclose the claimed burn rate of less than 4
inches per minute. It is further argued (id.) that “the Examiner
automatically assumed, without support, that nylon has all the
physical properties required for solid aircraft roller, since
nylon is in applicant’s list of suitable polymers for a general
type of roller.” It is asserted (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the
examiner has made a leap of faith in finding that since Thompson
uses nylon, his polymer must also have the physical properties
that applicant discloses for an aircraft roller fabricated from a
polymeric material. Appellant adds in the footnote at the bottom
of page 8 that “[t]here is perhaps an infinite number of nylons
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007