Ex parte HASS et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 96-3737                                                          
          Application No. 08/203,840                                                  

          (e.g., see the definitions on pages 1016-1018 of Hawley's                   
          Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 11th ed.; copy attached).  The               
          examiner points to nothing which evinces that McNeal teaches                
          or would have suggested a rubber plug which is resilient and                
          compliant in the manner required by the appellants' claims.                 
          On the other hand, McNeal's parent independent claim 6 ("a                  
          snugly fitting thermoplastic plug") in combination with                     
          dependent claim 9 ("said plug is a rubber plug") discloses a                
          thermoplastic rubber plug which militates against the                       
          examiner's belief that patentee's rubber plug would be                      
          resilient as claimed by the appellants.                                     
               These deficiencies of the McNeal reference are not cured               
          by either of the secondary references applied by the examiner               
          and                                                                         
          are fatal to each of the rejections advanced on this appeal.                
          For this reason alone, we cannot sustain any of the examiner's              
          above noted rejections.                                                     
               The decision of the examiner is reversed.                              
                                      REVERSED                                        





                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007