Appeal No. 96-3465
Application No. 07/848,856
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336,
345 (1961) (in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
there is “no legally recognizable or protected ‘essential’,
‘gist’, or ‘heart’ of the invention[,]” rather each claimed
invention must be considered as a whole).
The references, either taken alone or in combination, do not
teach or suggest inserting a heating element into an open end of
a cylindrically formed material, melting the interior surface of
overlapping material layers formed at the open end, and sealing
the layers together. See APPLICANT’S REPLY TO EXAMINER’S NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION (Paper No. 20), p. 2. Therefore, we agree
with appellants that the references, either taken alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest the method recited in claim
3.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colombo in view of Young or Tumminia. We
reverse this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007