Appeal No. 1998-3016
Application No. 08/568,344
Claims 2 and 5 through 10 are dependent on claim 1.
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, and 5 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thurman taken in view of the general state
of the art is reversed.
The examiner's rejection with regard to claim 11 as being
unpatentable over Thurman taken in view of the general state
of the art, will not be sustained.
Claim 11 includes two flanges, each of which, like claim
1, consists of a metal sheet with at least a portion of the
metal sheet being coated with rubber. As discussed above, we
do not find this feature to be taught or suggested by Thurman.
Again, we see no evidence with respect to the general state
of the art which teaches or suggests this feature. The
examiner's rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable over
Thurman taken in view of the general state of the art, will
not be sustained because, in our view, the combined teachings
of Thurman and the general state of the art fail to disclose
or suggest flanges, each of which consists of a metal sheet
with at least a portion of the metal sheet being coated with
rubber, as recited in claim 11.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007