Appeal No. 1997-4077
Application No. 08/441,989
§ 1.196(b) to allow the appellants a fair opportunity to react
thereto (see In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ
425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976)).
Rejection (II)
We next turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3,
5, 6, 8 and 9 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamaji.7
It is the examiner’s position that Yamaji discloses all
of the claimed subject matter, except for the particular
material of the gasket or retainer (final rejection, page 3).
The examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to coat the
gasket or retainer with an oxide film or resin,
since it has been held to be within the general
skill of a worker in the art to select a known
material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (Final rejection, pages
3 and 4)
7In that claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 depend, directly or indirectly,
from either independent claim 1 or 4, it is not clear why claims 1 and 4 were
not included in this rejection.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007