Appeal No. 96-1507
Application 08/168,185
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Kovacs in
view of Schuessler.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the stated rejection of claims 1 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The focus of the dispute between the appellant and the
examiner resides in the recitations of the last two clauses of
independent claim 1 on appeal. Neither the examiner nor
appellant discuss the teaching at the bottom of column 4,
lines 56-68 of Schuessler that the sealant material of Figures
3 and 6 of Schuessler’s invention may be preformed from sheet
stock by means of die cutting to yield a gasket-like “preform”
of sealant material which is placed on the periphery of the
inverted cover and subjected to temperature processing. This
appears to be equivalent to appellant’s recognized prior art
approach depicted in Figure 14 of the disclosed invention. On
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007