Appeal No. 2000-0165
Application No. 08/783,693
the reference to Hasan was combined with the teachings of
Smith because of the lack of a separator located on the
adhesive in Smith. Since none of the independent claims on
appeal claims a separator located on an adhesive, it follows
that the examiner implicitly considered all of the limitations
of each of the independent claims on appeal to be found in
Smith. With the exception of independent claim 1, and the
claims that depend therefrom, we agree with the examiner that
all of the limitations of each of the independent claims on
appeal would have been obvious over the sole teachings of
Smith.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is reversed
because the adhesive in Smith is located over the entire inner
surface and the flange of each of the tubular members 14, and
is not “contacting and adhering to only the sealing
interfaces” between the two separate objects (brief, pages 3
and 4) (emphasis added). The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2, 4 and 28 through 30 is likewise reversed because the
teachings of Hasan and Beinhaur do not cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Smith.
Inasmuch as the placement of the composite in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007