Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
advantage of preventing fracture. As to the appellants’
criticisms of the references individually, nonobviousness cannot
be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097,
231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to the rejection of claim 5 based on the combined
disclosures of Ranford, Bales and Kalt, the examiner has only
relied upon Kalt for a teaching of making the neck flange
transparent. There is, however, no limitation in claim 5 which
requires transparency. Claim 5 does require the polymer from
which the interconnection is molded to be of a durometer greater
than that of the polymer utilized in the neck engaging portion.
While Bales makes no mention of the respective durometers of the
polymers utilized, inasmuch as Bales does in fact disclose the
very same polymers as used by the appellants, there is a
reasonable basis to conclude that the durometer of polycarbonate
is greater than that of polyurethane.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 4 based on the combined
disclosures of Ranford and Bales and of claim 5 based on the
combined disclosures of Ranford, Bales and Kalt.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007