Appeal No. 2002-2277
Application No. 09/297,527
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
Keller, the primary reference, discloses a longline having
nylon stoppers, and the examiner has accepted appellants'
evidence that there is a difference between the nylon stoppers of
Keller, a thermoplastic polymer, and the claimed stopper made
from a thermoplastic elastomer. The examiner reasons, however,
that since thermoplastic elastomers are well known materials and
are found in the Polymer Technology Dictionary (page 4 of Answer,
first paragraph), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ a thermoplastic elastomer to make the
stopper of Keller.
We cannot subscribe to the examiner's reasoning. More is
required for a finding of obviousness under § 103 than evidence
that a particular material, claimed for a specific purpose, was
known in the art. There must be some teaching or suggestion in
the art that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to substitute the claimed thermoplastic elastomer for the
nylon stopper of Keller. This, however, has not been established
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007