Appeal No. 1998-0832
Application 08/496,760
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040,
1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the motivation for providing a rib
on the mounting portion of the APA is found in the suggestion by
Uba or Stolzman of the desirability of providing an energy
director or concentrator.
Also we find no support in the record for the assertion at
page 5 of the brief that it was appellant who discovered that it
was the void between the seam and shoulder member which resulted
in improper sealing. The APA does not attribute the discovery of
the cause of this problem to appellant, but merely states that
“With this prior art design, there is a problem of leakage at
[the void]” (page 2, lines 18 to 24).
With the neck member shoulder of the APA modified in light
of Uba or Stolzman to include a rib as an energy director or
concentrator, the question still remains as to whether joining
the thus-modified neck member to the sleeve of the APA would
result in a method meeting all the steps of claim 8, and in
particular, the final step, recited in lines 7 to 9 of the claim,
of “melting said plastic rib to cause said rib ... to fill said
void and seal said sleeve member and said shoulder member
together.” The examiner's position is, in effect, that such step
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007