Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
We agree with the position argued by appellants. The
description of the enclosure 25 resting in grooves 26 is
sufficient to support a generic recitation of a seal. The
artisan would have recognized that the description of
enclosure 25 and grooves 26 was intended to create a seal
around the open end of enclosure 25. Therefore, the
disclosure of this application provides support for the
claimed seal. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
22.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Siegmund. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to
make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to
provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007