Appeal No. 1997-4111 Page 19
Application No. 08/540,947
the old material obsolete. See Lyle/Carlstrom Associates Inc.
v. Manhattan Store Interiors, Inc., 635 F. Supp. 1371, 1385,
230 USPQ 278, 288 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (citations omitted), aff'd
mem., 824 F.2d 977 (Fed. Cir. 1987); accord Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 11, 148 USPQ 459, 464 (1966).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 11
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reviewed the prior art applied by the examiner in
the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 11. However, even if the
prior art were modified in the manner set forth by the
examiner (answer, pp. 5-6) it would not have arrived at the
claimed invention. In that regard, the modified device of
Cain would still include gap 18 and therefore would not be
readable on claim 1 which requires the plug to have an "air-
tight end face" as set forth in claim 1.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007