Appeal No. 1997-3513
Application No. 08/263,700
examiner’s finding that Sato implicitly requires a ball harder
than the passageway material is based on assumption or
speculation. A proper obviousness determination, under 35
U.S.C. § 103, cannot be based on assumptions or speculation.
With respect to the disclosure of Chaney, we note in
column 4, starting at line 34, that the passageway liner 29
can be either resilient or nonresilient and can be made of
many suggested materials. Likewise, the ball 56 of Chaney can
be made either resilient or nonresilient and of various
materials. Thus, Chaney does not provide motivation or a
suggestion for making both the ball hard and the passageway
hard but ensuring that the
ball is much harder than the passageway. In fact, the Chaney
disclosure would suggest the ball can be made harder than the
passageway or vice versa.
On the other hand, Rozmus does show sealing a passageway
with a ball, the ball being made of steel, and thus being much
harder than the passageway material which is disclosed as
copper. We agree with the examiner that Rozmus discloses the
plastic flow of the softer material around the ball providing
a proper seal. However, if one of ordinary skill were to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007