Appeal No. 1997-4077
Application No. 08/441,989
6, lines 38-40). In view of Babuder’s teaching, it is our
opinion that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention
to make the joint members 1 and 2 in Shinohara of stainless
steel in order to achieve the self-evident advantages thereof.
Appellants’ argument at pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief
that the provision of a nut tightening quantity display device
5 in Shinohara “flies in the very face of using the ports 22"
as windows for inspection purposes is unpersuasive. The nut
tightening quantity display device 5 in Shinohara simply
assists in preventing excessive or insufficient tightening of
the nut (page 11). It does not indicate whether or not the
gasket has been properly installed.
For the reasons set forth above, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a) over Babuder and
Shinohara.
Appellants have not challenged the rejection of claim 4
with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing claim 4 to
fall with
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007