Appeal No. 1999-2845 Page 11
Application No. 08/495,471
The teachings of Held have been set forth above. Stewart
discloses a safety container in which a bulked or textured
filamentary plastic material is employed to reduce explosion
hazard and/or as a anti-sloshing means.
The examiner found (final rejection, p. 3) that Stewart
teaches "that it was known to provide a coating binder as set
forth at column 1, lines 70+." The examiner then determined
that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to "modify
the 'glass wool' of Held to include a binder, as taught by
Stewart."
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 15-19, and reply brief,
pp. 2-3) that the examiner has not presented a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claims 19 to 23, 34 to 36,
45, 46 and 61 since there is no suggestion to combined the
applied prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. We
agree. We have reviewed the teachings of Stewart (especially
those set forth at column 1, lines 70+) and fail to find any
teaching "that it was known to
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007