Appeal No. 96-3132 Page 4
Application No. 08/248,521
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 14 3
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share the appellant's view that
the combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
suggested the claimed invention. In fact, as pointed out by the
appellant (brief, pp. 15-16), the applied prior art fails to
teach or suggest most of the limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 15. While both applied prior art patents teach a
weight mounted on a flexible hose, they do not teach or suggest
the claimed invention. In particular, it is our determination
that the combined teachings of the applied prior art would not
have suggested the outwardly extending flat surfaces of the upper
and lower portions of the collar weight being spaced apart as
recited in independent claim 1 or the collar portions of the
collar weight being spaced apart as recited in independent claim
15. We also find the examiner's expressed reasoning concerning
the obviousness of substituting zinc for lead to be somewhat
tenuous in that (1) the applied prior art does not teach lead or
3Consistent with the appellant's specification (page 2,
lines 14-18), we have interpreted the phrase from lines 5-7 of
claim 1 "said collar comprises a composition of a zinc-based
alloy wherein said zinc-based alloy is provided in an amount of
about 95 percent by weight" to mean "said collar comprises a
composition of a zinc-based alloy wherein zinc is provided in an
amount of about 95 percent by weight." The appellant should
amend claim 1 to reflect this interpretation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007