Appeal No. 97-0145
Application 08/073,327
been obvious to provide an “energy concentrator,” that is, a weld
bead, at an appropriate point in the pocket, in the fashion
admitted to have been known in the prior art. See specification,
page 2, lines 20 through 29. The appellants' argument concerning
the lack of provisions for controlling and capturing the flash
caused by such welding cannot be considered to be persuasive
because it is predicated upon limitations that are not present in
the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1346-47, 213 USPQ 1,
3 (CCPA 1982). A prima facie case of obviousness therefore is
established here, also.
SUMMARY
All of the rejections having been sustained, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007