Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
length is unavailing inasmuch as this reference is not relied
upon by the examiner in his answer to support the rejection of
the appealed claims. Furthermore, the recitation that the
liner is required to have a “minimum length” for achieving the
stated noise reduction does not exclude liners of greater
lengths as appellants seem to suggest in their arguments.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of the Belley, Sakaki and Williams
references would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1
to one of ordinary skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of
obviousness under the test set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we will
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1.
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 2 since
the patentability of this claim has not been separately argued
with any degree of specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In any
event, Sakaki expressly teaches the claimed end cap
construction for the self-evident purpose of providing a
diametrically enlarged liner-receiving attenuating chamber to
render such a construction obvious within the meaning of §
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007