Appeal No. 2000-1628
Application No. 09/163,013
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
17) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 18) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
As framed by the appellants (see pages 8 through 10 in
the brief), the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether
the applied prior art teaches or would have suggested a metal
gasket meeting the “raised spacer layer” limitations in
representative claim 14. As indicated above, claim 14
requires the raised spacer layer to be formed by pattern
printing with a heat-resistant, compression-resistant material
between the stopper and annular pressure receiver portion of
the gasket-constituting plate opposite the stopper, wherein
the heat-resistant compression-resistant material adheres to
the first gasket-constituting plate.
2In the final rejection (Paper No. 9), claims 14 through
18 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. In response to the amendment subsequent to final
rejection (see n.1, supra), the examiner (see page 5 in the
answer) has withdrawn this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007