Appeal No. 95-2533
Application No. 08/018,125
which closely conforms to the barrel while at the same time
providing “a perfect obturation.”
The appellant additionally argues that the above-noted
substitution of obturators would destroy Ashton’s invention
inasmuch as Ashton’s disclosed obturator is formed of a flexible
barrier of textile or other material which encloses granulated
cork. However, the substitution of a more effective obturator
than that disclosed by Ashton would enhance, not destroy,
Ashton’s invention.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
combined teachings of Ashton and the French patent.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12, 15 and 16
as being unpatentable over Ashton in view of the Swiss patent,
the examiner has relied on the teachings of the Swiss patent for
a suggestion to effect a “sealing expansion” of a flexible wall
of an obturator by means of a shock-absorbing fluid (independent
claims 1 and 12) and shock-absorbing gas (independent claim 16).
The appellant, however, contends that in the Swiss patent it is
the tapered wall portion (2) of the obturator, and “not the
cushioning air” that effects the sealing expansion of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007