Appeal No. 94-3599
Application 07/931,737
Appealed claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art
in view of Hong. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art and Hong,
further in view of Kano.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellant that the examiner
has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections.
We agree with appellant that Hong is non-analogous art and,
therefore, not properly combinable with the admitted prior art.
Hong is directed to an apparatus for sealing, or masking, the
inner surface of the flared portion of a cathode ray tube in
order to protect the surface from the spray-coating of carbon
material on the neck portion of the cathode ray tube.
Manifestly, Hong is not pertinent to the field of endeavor of the
admitted prior art and appellant, viz., bonding a window to a
vehicle flange. We also agree with appellant that Hong is not
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by
appellant, i.e., Hong is not concerned with the problems
associated with masking the surface of a vehicle before painting,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007