Ex parte GRUBER et al. - Page 11




          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