Appeal 2006-0249
Application 10/315,401
edges on the sealing element as claimed. The sealing element at issue is the
sealing element including a sealing band peripherally enclosing the
composite. The seals 10 and 20 of Inoue do not peripherally enclose the
composite much less include clamp edges over the outer edges of the outer
cell separator plates as claimed.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 3 and claim 4
dependent thereon.
Claim 8
Appellant also argues claim 8 separately. This claim requires a
second sealing strip extending into a second sealing gap. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner did not address the limitation of claim 8.
We conclude that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 8.
Claim 31
Appellant argues claim 31 separately. This claim requires that the
sealing element be a single elastic sealing element. Appellant argues that the
sealing element of Inoue is a two part sealing element. While that is true, it
does not address the basis of the rejection. When Inoue is modified as
suggested by the secondary references, the result is a single elastic sealing
element having the required sealing band peripherally enclosing the
composition and having the peripheral sealing strip extending
perpendicularly from the sealing band into the sealing gap of Inoue as
suggested by the secondary references.
We conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 31 and claims 32-34
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007