Appeal No. 2004-1750
Application No. 09/985,937
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In that regard, we also note
that it is well settled that the expectation of some advantage or
improvement recognized in the prior art generally provides one of
the strongest rationales justifying a combination of prior art
references. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-995, 217 USPQ
1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As for the polymeric components and compositions set forth
in claims 17 through 20 on appeal, these are suggested in Nosker
'932 at column 4, line 40 to column 5, line 43, and thus, the
examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on the collective teachings of Nosker '932 and Reis will
also be sustained.
However, we find no basis for the examiner's position with
regard to claims 3, 8, 9, 13 through 16 and 27 through 34 on
appeal. Nothing in either Nosker '932 or Reis suggests concave
shapes in the form of truncated cones in which the sides of the
cones are at an angle of 30-60 degrees with respect to the side
of the tie, or truncated shapes having the particular base size
range, specific depth range, and center-to-center spacing
required in the above-noted dependent claims. Like appellants,
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007