Appeal No. 99-0210
Application 08/732,285
agree, considering that the applied reference teaches using
plastic elastomers (translation, page 4) and the appellant
admits on page 1 of the specification that prior art seals
were made of “microcellular rubber or some similar material
that when positioned against the glass pane will press against
it sufficiently.” We also take note that the claimed material
would have suggested itself to one of ordinary skill in the
art on the basis of the known advantages thereof, skill being
presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack
thereof. See In re Sovish, supra.
Claims 27-33 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
German ‘283 in view of German ‘608. Claim 27 adds to claim 26
(which depends from claim 13) the additional requirement that
the foot recited in claim 26 is “open on a side opposite that
of the profiled base.” German ‘608 is directed to a
supporting insulation for windows, doors or the like. It is
the examiner’s view that it would have been obvious to utilize
an open foot instead of the closed one disclosed in German
‘283 in view of the teachings of German ‘608. We agree,
observing that German ‘608 states on page 10 of the
translation that the use of an opening (notch 13) in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007