Appeal No. 2006-2839
Application No. 10/699,229
Appellants' position (brief, page 5) is that in Freitag, insulating coat 10
terminates in a plane common with the end face of the cylindrical member such
that the insulating coat does not extend into the gap. It is argued that in Freitag,
shield 36 is not formed unitarily with the insulating coating 10, and that there is no
suggestion of extending heat-shrink sleeve 10 so that it extends axially into the
ring-shaped gap between the end face of cylinder 1 and the piston rod 2 to enclose
the end face of the cylinder member. With respect to Kaufmann, it is asserted
(brief, page 6) that cylindrical segment 24 of shrink-wrap sleeve 22 wraps around
an axial portion of piston rod 14 outside a closed end 16 of cylinder 12. It is
argued (brief, page 7) that providing Freitag with the cylindrical segment 24 of
Kaufmann "cannot render the structure as recited in claim 1 unpatentable." It is
further argued that Freitag is concerned with electro-conductive parts that are not
typically exposed to moisture, and that the examiner has not shown motivation to
combine Freitag and Kaufmann. With regard to the examiner's assertion that
Kaufmann fairly suggests making integral the insulating coat 10 and insulating
sleeve 36 of Freitag, appellants argue (brief, page 8) that
Since Freiteg et al. teaches that the electrically insulating
sleeve 36 is displaceable with the piston member,
fixing the sleeve 36 to the coating 10, which is
stationary, to the displaceable sleeve would lead to (a)
preventing the sleeve from traveling, or (b) tearing the
sleeve 36 apart from the rest of the coating 10 during
the expanded of the piston rod.
In the reply brief, appellants add (page 2) that in Kaufmann, the portion 24
of sleeve 22 extends axially outwards from the cylinder's end face and thus, does
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007