Appeal No. 1999-1530 Page 9
Application No. 08/728,607
We sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 11 adds to parent claim 1 the further limitation
that the cover includes "means for maintaining a shape of said
groove."
The appellants argue (brief, p. 9) that while Tsuzuki
appears to show a seal groove, Tsuzuki does not teach or
suggest a reinforcing member. We find this argument to be
unpersuasive since it is not commensurate in scope to claim
11. In that regard, claim 11 does not recite "a reinforcing
member." Rather claim 11 recites "means for maintaining a
shape of said groove" which the examiner has determined
(answer, pp. 5-6) is met by the combined teachings of the
applied prior art. Since the appellants have not presented
any other argument with respect to claim 11, the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12-19 and 21
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007