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 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007