Appeal No. 2001-2235 Page 8
Application No. 08/699,660
Claims 11-13 are also rejected over Knowlton ‘129 in view of Hughes. The sealing
element of Knowlton ‘129 is not heat softenable and plastically deformable, it is a liquid curable
plastic material such as a plastisol (Knowlton ‘129 at col. 2, l. 1). This material gels (col. 2, l. 5)
and expands upon curing (col. 2, ll. 15-17), it does not soften and plastically deform upon
heating. Moreover, the material is not mechanically deformed, but expands into the threads.
Heating the fastener, as described by Hughes, would not reduce torque nor increase flow because
the material of Knowlton ‘129 is not thermoplastic, but a cured material. The Examiner has
failed to present a convincing reason to make the combination such as to result in the claimed
invention.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 11-13. None of the additionally applied references
cure the deficiencies discussed above. Therefore, rejections of the other dependent claims,
claims 14-20, fall as well.
Claims 20-23 are rejected over either Knowlton ‘610 or Knowlton ‘129 in view of Shinjo.
all of these claims require the sealing of both ends of a generally tubular fastener element. In
addition to sealing the threaded end with a deformable sealing element, the other end is sealed
with a metal disk. Neither of the Knowlton references nor Shinjo describes sealing a metal disk
in the free end of a fastener element. The insert of Shinjo is not a metal disk but a resilient insert
with an aperture in the center. In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007