Appeal No. 1998-3305 Page 7
Application No. 08/381,886
(answer, p. 3) that (1) Rott "discloses substantially similar
structure," 5
(2) Wada "discloses forming in two sections an internal
channel," and (3) Miltner "discloses the equivalence between a
groove and internal channel." The examiner then concluded
(answer, pp. 3-4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to a mechanic with ordinary
skill in the art to provide these features to the primary
reference. The motivation is to aid in manufacturing,
and to convert to a felt tip.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 4-5) that "the claimed
invention could not be obvious from the art of record" since
the references, together or separately, do not teach all of
the limitations of the claims under appeal. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require that a groove be
formed when opposing recesses in two distinct portions are
secured one to another. However, this limitation is not
5We presume that the examiner was comparing the claimed
subject matter to the subject matter disclosed in Rott in
making this determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007