Appeal No. 96-1633
Application 08/119,245
page 4).
While at first blush there is some logic to the
examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of Wohl and
Zahn when viewed in the abstract, the error in the examiner’s
line of reasoning, as we see it, is its focus on the
obviousness of the modifications rather than on the
obviousness of the claimed invention as a whole. Our first
difficulty with the examiner’s rejection is that the proposed
modification of Wohl runs directly counter to the Wohl’s clear
teaching that the mastic 70 is applied by flowing it into the
partially formed joint at the time the joint is assembled. It
is not clear that Wohl’s mastic compound is even capable of
being maintained in place on the resilient sealing member A as
a pre-applied element, or that Wohl’s sealing arrangement is
in any way deficient because the mastic is not pre-applied.
In this regard, Wohl appears to have given no thought
whatsoever to pre-applying the mastic to any of the members
that make up the finished joint, much less the resilient
member A, as called for in the appealed claims.
Another difficulty we have with the rejection relates to
Zahn. Unlike Wohl, Zahn is not concerned with providing a
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007