Appeal No. 1998-3207 Page 11
Application No. 08/518,874
"means for linking." With regard to Bird, Pasch and Wieser,
we see no structure therein that would be equivalent to the
structure disclosed by the appellants. Furthermore, with
respect to Bird, Pasch and Wieser, the examiner appears to be
impermissibly reading the same structure that constitutes part
of the claimed "means for evacuating" as the "means for
linking." With regard to Timson, it is our view that the
examiner has not established that Timson's gap between the
upper coating lip 38 and the web (see column 4, lines 40-56)
is an equivalent to the structure disclosed by the appellants.
In our view, it is not.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-9 and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007