Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
103. It will be noted that the language in claim 2 is broad
enough to encompass end caps which are unitary with the
muffler pipe.
With regard to claim 3, we also share the examiner’s view
that it would have been obvious to make the claimed muffler
parts from plastic. Appellants have not contested the
examiner’s findings in the first full paragraph on page 6 of
the answer. We are convinced that at the time of appellants’
invention, those skilled in the muffler art would have been
aware of the beneficial results stemming from parts made of
plastic as opposed to other materials. Accordingly, we will
also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 3.
With regard to claim 4, the beneficial results stemming
from an open cell foam structure to attenuate noise was known
in the muffler art prior appellants’ invention as evidenced by
Belley’s express suggestion of such a cell structure for
making the foam liner used in the silencer 22. We therefore
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
utilize an open cell structure for the muffler’s foam liner.
Accordingly, we will also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim
4.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007