Appeal No. 96-0555
Application No. 08/156,741
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 based upon Powell and
Webber therefore is sustained.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the rejection
on the basis of Powell in view of Carr. The latter reference
discloses a curved face 16a of "soft silicone Rubber" (column
2, line 52) through which a pin extends. The pin is received
in the tapered entrance 36a of a socket located in a front
face that can be, at least in part, of a "somewhat harder
material." The reference teaches that the convex surface
presses "firmly and completely" upon the other surface (column
7, line 14). It is our conclusion that, in view of the
teachings of Carr, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to cover the face of Powell through which the
pins protrude with a convex elastomeric material.
We are not persuaded by the appellant's arguments that
those rejections which we have sustained are without merit.
Our position with regard to them should be apparent. In
addition, we point out that, in large part, the appellant's
arguments focus upon limitations which were not present in
claims 8 and 9, and therefore fail at the outset. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007