Appeal No. 95-4590
Application 08/056,188
neck portion. There is simply nothing in Soubie which
corresponds to the claimed inner flange (33) seen in
appellants' Figure 2 of the application drawings.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Turning to the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Seasafe #4055, Soubie and Hagert, we share
appellants' view that the prior art applied by the examiner
fails to teach or suggest the particular structure of the
grommets as specified in claim 24 on appeal. In addition, we
agree with appellants that there is no basis to conclude that
the particular structure of the grommets as set forth in claim
24 on appeal would have been merely an obvious matter of
design choice. Thus, the examiner's rejection of claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
On the other hand, we also find that appellants'
origi- nally filed disclosure provides no support for the
particular structure of the grommets as now set forth in claim
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007