Appeal No. 99-0210
Application 08/732,285
anchor (foot) allows it to be “forced with relative ease into
the supporting groove,” which would have been explicit
suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
modification. The subject matter of claims 13 and 26, from
which claim 27 depends, having been disclosed in German ‘283,
the addition of the teachings of German ‘608 establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 27, and we shall sustain this
rejection.
Claim 28, which also depends from claim 26, states that a
foot is provided on a wall of the anchoring wedge and that the
wall is reinforced with a plastic having a high Shore
hardness, and claim 29 further requires that the wall be of a
40 D/60 A plastic material. German ‘608 teaches that the legs
should consist of a material that is “substantially harder”
than the material of the rest of the seal, which provides
several improvements (translation, pages 3 and 14). It is our
view that one of ordinary skill therefore would have found it
obvious to reinforce the foot with a harder material such as
is recited in claim 28, and thus we will sustain the
rejection of claim 28. It is our further view that it then
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007