Appeal No. 2004-0235 Page 6
Application No. 09/873,583
and beyond groove 12) is without merit and even if correct would still not anticipate
claim 30 since the limitation that the second portion of the first locator is disposed in the
raised central hub portion of the first diaphragm member would not be met.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 21 to 24, 29 and 37 to 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 21 to 24, 29 and 37 to 41 all include the limitation that the diaphragm
member has a plurality of stiffening ribs formed thereon. In the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (answer, p. 3) the examiner ascertained that Hughes' rubber disc did
not have the claimed stiffening ribs and concluded that it would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided
Hughes' rubber disc with the stiffening ribs in view of the teachings of Grimard.
The appellant argues that the teachings of Grimard would not have suggested
modifying Hughes' rubber disc to include stiffening ribs. We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007