Appeal No. 1997-3029
Application 08/416,526
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
There are only two independent claims, 1 and 16. Claim 1
is broader in scope than claim 16. Therefore we take claim 1
for our analysis.
The crux of the issues is whether the device shown in
Wuchinich or Mishiro or Elbert, each of which is designed for
a long narrow sealing edge and each of which is at least one
full wavelength in length, can be obviously modified to be
one-half wavelength in length in view of Shoh or McMaster,
each of which is one-half wavelength in length but is capable
of yielding only spot welding or sealing rather than long
narrow welding or sealing.
We have carefully reviewed the positions of Appellants
[brief, pages 14 and 17 and reply brief, pages 2 to 7] and the
examiner [answer, pages 2 to 5]. We also considered the two
declarations provided by Appellants [paper nos. 16 and 19].
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and the two
declarations that, to achieve the claimed device, it is not a
matter of merely “optimizing a known device ... to specific
dictated job requirements ...” as the Examiner asserts
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007