Appeal No. 98-2655
Application 08/698,743
Looking to the examiner's prior art rejection of appealed
claims 1, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as appellant has on
pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief, we note that the examiner’s
findings (answer, pages 4-5) with regard to Iba are factually
incorrect, in that Iba does not disclose, teach or suggest a
“gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane” like that
required in claim 1 on appeal. Instead, Iba discloses a
resilient gasket (16) that includes “H” shaped slits or
perforations (34) therein, which slits define vent openings
when subjected to a level of gas pressure sufficient to
deflect the flaps (35) thereof. Moreover, at column 4, lines
41-45, of Iba, it is noted that any liquid that leaks or is
forced through the flaps during venting, will be contained
within the recess defined by peripheral edge or shoulder (30),
thus clearly demonstrating that the gasket (16) is not
“liquid-impermeable.”
Accordingly, even if it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
(based on Dubois) to weld or glue the membrane (16) of Iba to
the internal surface of the cap so as to more securely hold
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007