Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
are satisfied that this reference meets all of the limitations
in claims 1 and 4 to thus anticipate the subject matter of
claims 1 and 4. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We will therefore sustain the § 102(b) rejection of these
claims.
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 5
and 6. Appellants’ argument on page 17 of the brief that their
invention lacks a flexible skirt akin to Grote’s skirt 38 is
without merit. Like claims 1 and 4, claims 5 and 6 do not
exclude the presence of other elements such as a resilient
member or a flexible skirt. Furthermore, appellants have not
taken issue with the examiner’s finding on page 7 of the
answer that the properties of the claimed materials are known
in the art. Therefore, the choice of any of these materials
would have been prima facie obvious. See In re Ludtke, 441
F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1971).
Unlike claims 1 and 4, claims 2, 3 and 8 recite that
the tool comprises two channels which cross at their centers.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007