Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 17
Application No. 10/068,243
supporting the weights borne by rollers. The passage referred to
by appellant is discussing how the invention does not require
tire 17 to take on excess force during overload conditions. This
is supported by Thompson’s disclosure that his invention
overcomes problems in the prior art where the tire was overloaded
and failed prematurely (col. 1, lines 19-25 and 38-41). This is
further supported by the disclosure of Thompson (col. 2, lines
63-65) that “the described construction is found to satisfy all
stated objects and to provide long life in a light-weight product
which will sustain even the worst loads.”
Nor are we persuaded by appellants assertion (brief, page 7)
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.” From our review of appellant’s
specification, we find that the reference to nylon on page 5 is
not referring to a general type of roller, but rather to roller
10 of appellant’s invention. Nor are we persuaded by appellant’s
assertion (brief, page 8) that Thompson does not disclose the
compressibility strength, impact strength and flexural strength
of claim 13. From our findings, supra, that Thompson discloses
the roller to be fabricated from super-tough nylon, to be used
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007