Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
(Answer, page 5). However, even assuming, arguendo, that Bellis
is analogous prior art , it is our view that these two references2
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to the subject matter of claims 3 and 10 by virtue of the same
shortcoming of Spinner pointed out in the foregoing rejections,
that is, its failure to teach the separable and removable
features. This rejection therefore is not sustained.
Claims 4, 11 and 14 through 16 have been rejected as being
unpatentable over Spinner in view of Booth, the latter being
cited for its teaching of making the inner part of the seal
slightly thicker than the outer part. Claims 4 and 14 also
require the separable and removable features for which the
examiner vainly looks to Spinner, as we have explained above. A
prima facie case of obviousness therefore is not established with
regard to claims 4 and 14, and their rejection on these grounds
is not sustained.
Independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 15 and 16
differ, however, in that claim 11 does not require that the outer
part be "separable" from the inner part, but merely that the
outer part be "separate." While we agree with the appellant that
2The appellant has argued on pages 10 through 14 of the
Brief that Bellis is nonanalogous art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007