Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
potted bundle can be fitted into a casing wherein the potted bundle is
adhered or sealed to the housing casing with a potting material or adhesive,
as an option (col. 10, ll. 54-60). After all, skill and not the converse is
expected of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, the additional disclosure of
Bikson with regard to bonding the hollow fiber bundle tubesheet to a shell
(col. 9, ll. 35-36) further supports the Examiner’s obviousness position with
regard to the obviousness of employing two potting steps, as called for in
representative appealed claim 1.
As a final, point, we note that Appellants have not presented any
comparative evidence, much less persuasive evidence, to establish that the
claimed process is attended by anything other than expected results. In this
regard, persuasive argument and/or convincing evidence has not been
presented to establish that the potting shrinkage problem referred to in the
Specification is non-obviously addressed or solved by the broadly recited
method steps of representative claim 1 (Specification 2).
It follows that, on this record, we shall sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection (Rejection H) of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mancusi in view of Bikson.
Rejections I through S
As set forth in the Reply Brief, Appellants’ arguments against the
Examiner’s separate Rejections I through S, all of which rejections employ
Mancusi for teaching two potting steps, focus on the asserted lack of a
teaching of two potting steps by Mancusi, and the assertion that the Runkle
Declaration refutes the Examiner’s position as to the teachings of Mancusi
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013