Appeal No. 1998-0510
Application 08/742,519
Nevertheless, figure 2a of Wengen discloses a second opening
37 that "will serve as a vent and observation opening whereby
the user may be constantly aware of the depth of potting
material which he is creating within the casing structure"
(col. 3, lines 25-28). This second opening has a cylindrical
wall that might broadly be considered a container that
contains encapsulant exiting from the casing. However, claim
1 recites a "pressure relief valve" and such a valve would
prevent direct visual observation. Therefore, some add-on
structure is required. We find no motivation in Wengen to put
a container like container 34 on the outlet port since the
depth of the potting material can be directly observed through
the opening. Assuming, arguendo, that it would have been
obvious to put a container on the outlet port, it presumably
would have been a wide container like container 34 which
permitted viewing the level from the top and there would have
been no necessity for the container to be light transmissive.
Accordingly, the Examiner's obviousness rationale is
incomplete.
Appellants note that in Hickinbotham the entire content
of bag 20 is forced out of the structure into plastic bag 50.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007