Appeal No. 98-0197
Application 08/417,362
applied prior art does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1 through 4.
Therefore, the rejections made by the examiner are reversed.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, it is our view that claim 4 does not
raise an issue of whether a subcombination plug washer is
claimed, or whether a combination of a plug washer and support
plate are claimed, as the examiner suggests. A careful
reading of claim 4 establishes that claim 4 only references
the support plate to set out the thickness of the plug portion
of the plug washer being claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the
reference to the support plate in claim 4 is merely a
permissible reference to establish the dimensions of the plug
portion of the claimed subject matter. In our view, claim 4
does not raise the issue of a combination invention.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the examiner has included two
rejections, one denominated as over Williams in view of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007