Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
position, with which we agree, that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to make the rigid member of
Olmstead from plastic, in view of the teachings of Patel.
Suggestion for such a modification is found in the self-evident
advantages of the use of plastic materials, which would have been
known to the artisan, such as lighter weight and ease of
manufacture. In this regard, we observe that Patel has listed
several advantages in column 1. Furthermore, and quite
interestingly, Patel has described the method of manufacturing
the device as comprising the steps of “injecting material having
metal-like properties to form the hole filling and locking
portions,” that is, the rigid member, and then injecting the
“resilient, softer material into the same mold” to thus “form the
unitary dual durometer plug” (column 2, lines 1 through 7,
emphasis added). This, in our view, explicitly establishes the
prima facie obviousness of utilizing a suitable plastic material
instead of metal.
This rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007