Appeal No. 96-0561
Application 08/055,584
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 under § 102 is well founded
and will be sustained. However, the examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 through 21 is not
well founded and will therefore not be sustained. Our reasoning
in support of these determinations follows.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4, 7 and 9 under § 102(b), we are in agreement with the examiner
that the mandrel assembly of Hirmer is fully responsive to that
set forth in the claims so rejected, and that the mandrel
assembly of Hirmer is fully capable of being used for enlarging
the cross-sectional area of a passage formed in an elastomeric
work piece such as a seal, sleeve, or grommet, notwithstanding
that the mandrel assembly therein is not specifically disclosed
for such use. In this regard, we note that the mandrel assembly
of Hirmer includes first and second generally axially elongated
resiliently deflectable members (3), described on page 3 of
the translation as "[t]wo projections 3," that are positioned
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007