Appeal No. 97-1250
Application 08/347,087
Thus, the examiner’s finding that the subject matter recited
in independent claims 1 and 12 is anticipated by Udagawa’s Figure
6 gasket embodiment is not well taken. Since this subject matter
is not anticipated by any of the other gasket embodiments
disclosed by Udagawa, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 12, or of claims 3, 5, 6, 9
and 10 which depend therefrom.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8
and 11, the test for obviousness is what the teachings of the
prior art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In addition to not disclosing a gasket having a
main sealing portion situated around a heat preventing portion
and being formed of at least three annular portions and laminated
together by bending the first metal plate outside its inner end
portion as recited in independent claim 1, Udagawa would not have
suggested same to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 8 and 11, which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable
over Udagawa.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007