Appeal No. 1998-3300
Application 08/722,907
thin site (14) that is penetrated by the writing tip (15) when it is first moved,” while page 5 of the
translation, with particular regard to Figure 4, notes that at the thin site (14) of the seal (3) “there can be
a very small incision (25) made in the factory or just a puncture.” Clearly the very small incision or
puncture mentioned in Bross is not the same as the full diameter slit required in appellants’ claims on
appeal. As for the teachings of Di Silvestro, the length of the slit (8) in the sealing elements therein is
said to be “preferably a little greater than the diameter of a hollow shaft (9) onto which the writing point
is attached” (translation, page 5). See, particularly, Figures 1-4 of Di Silvestro. Again, it is clear that
the slit in the sealing elements of Di Silvestro is not a full diameter slit of the type specified in appellants’
claims on appeal.
Since the combined teachings of the applied references to Bross and Di Silvestro would not
have rendered the subject matter of appellants’ claims on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time appellants’ invention was made, it follows that we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Our review of the Lai, Hoffman and Kroutl patents applied by the examiner against dependent
claims 4 and 5 reveals nothing which would alter our view as expressed above. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is likewise not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007