Appeal 2006-2880
Application 10/226,387
member (36) to the drum (20) yields integrally-formed elements resulting in a
single monolithic or uniform whole (Answer 4). Even if we were to adopt this
position of the Examiner, the limitations of claim 23 would still not be met because
the inner surface of the sidewall near the open end would not extend continuously
and uninterrupted onto the strengthening member. Using the Examiner’s
interpretation, the inner surface of the single monolithic sidewall of Maruki would
be the inner surface of the wall of drum (20). Maruki does not show this wall
extending continuously and uninterrupted onto the folded over portion of the
cylindrical member (36). As such, we find that Maruki does not anticipate the
invention of claim 23, because it does not disclose a sidewall having “a plurality of
spaced splines” and “a strengthening member near the open end that is formed of
the sidewall material having a folded over portion” and it does not show “an inner
surface of the sidewall near the open end extending continuously and uninterrupted
onto the strengthening member and establishing at least one surface of the
strengthening member.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23
and claims 24-28 and 30, which depend from claim 23, under 35 USC § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Maruki.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013