Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
that there is no descriptive support in the appellants’ original
disclosure for the recitation that the neck engaging portion and
the interconnection “are formed in the same plane” and,
accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (1)
claims 1 and 4 as being unpatentable over Ranford in view of
Bales and (2) claim 5 as being unpatentable over Ranford in view
of Bales and Kalt, it is the appellants’ position that there is
no suggestion to combine the teachings of Ranford and Bales. In
support of this position the amended reply brief states
Ranford et al does not in any manner suggest that
different materials could be used to modify the makeup
of the flange. Rather, Ranford et al states that
variation of the configuration of the flange portions
modifies the flexibility of the collar. The collar is
further defined as being both the flange portions 30
and the tubular sleeve portion 29 (note column 3, lines
5-9 of Ranford et al). Therefore, if any modifications
are to be made, Ranford et al necessarily requires that
the entire collar; flange portions and tubular sleeve
portion, be so modified, and thus using different
materials for the different portions is not
contemplated or suggested by Ranford et al.
Because Ranford et al so clearly teaches away from
the present invention, Bales can not be combined with
Ranford et al to arrive at the present invention.
Obviousness can not be found by using a secondary
reference (Bales) to directly override the stated
objectives and purposes of a primary reference (Ranford
et al). [Page 12].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007