Appeal No. 2006-2839
Application No. 10/699,229
heat-shrink sleeve surrounding the pressure tube extends axially into said ring-
shaped gap, enclosing the end face. We find from this language that the ring-
shaped gap extends between the end face and the piston rod. In Freitag, the
insulating coat 10 does not extend into the ring-shaped gap. Insulating shield 36 is
distinct from the insulating coat 10. In Kaufmann, cylindrical segment 24 extends
across the gap between the piston-cylinder assembly 10 and the piston 14.
However, when the cylindrical segment 24 reaches the piston rod 14, it turns
outwardly and extends in an axial direction away from the end of the piston-
cylinder. Claim 1 requires the heat-shrink sleeve to extend axially into the gap to
enclose the end face. In Kaufmann, the heat-shrink sleeve does not extend axially
into the gap, and does not enclose the end face of the pressure tube (piston-
cylinder). Thus, whether we combine the insulating coat 10 and the insulating
shield 36 or whether we provide Freitag with an extending cylindrical segment 24
in view of the disclosure of Kauffmann, we would not arrive at the claimed
invention because the resultant sleeve would not extend axially into the ring-
shaped gap, and would not enclose the end face. Thus, we need not address the
issue of whether the teachings of Freitag and Kaufmann would have been
combined by an artisan because the combined teachings and suggestions of the
references would not have resulted in the claimed invention. Accordingly, we find
from all of the above that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1. We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, or
claims 3-7 and 13, which depend therefrom.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007