Appeal No. 96-1633
Application 08/119,245
could be made that the resulting gasket would be more
difficult to install.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing rejection of claims 13 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Wohl in view of Zahn.
Considering the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wohl in view of
Zahn and further in view of Bouchey, as aptly pointed out by
appellants, Bouchey adds little to the evidentiary basis of
the rejection. This is so because the teaching of Bouchey
relied upon by examiner, i.e., “that it is known to use a
release substrate on a window seal” (answer, page 4), is also
taught by Wohl at release substrate 80 used to cover the
adhesive surface 64 of tape 60. In brief, the additional
teachings of Bouchey do not make up for the shortcomings of
Wohl and Zahn discussed above. Accordingly, we also will not
sustain the standing rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 14.
As stated by the court in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007