Appeal 2007-1112
Application 10/692,116
cylinder. One skilled in the art would recognize that the liner material of
Luttmann would function to prevent contact between the cylinder contents
and the metal portion of the cylinder as called for by Haldenby. In other
words, Caudill has done nothing more than use a known material for the
purpose of having it achieve one of its known functions without directing us
to any evidence establishing that an unpredictable result was achieved.
Considering the scope and the content of the prior art to Haldenby and
Luttmann, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art to use a polyethylene copolymer as the plastic liner of
the cylinder taught by Haldenby and Seal. We conclude that it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of the references cited and arrive at
the claimed invention.
VI. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9,
and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Haldenby in
view of Seal et al. is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3-5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Haldenby
in view of Seal and Luttmann et al. is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (iv) (2006).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013