Appeal No. 2000-0085
Application No. 08/802,582
Since we have determined that the teachings and
suggestions found in Brandon considered with those of McIntyre
and Dernbach would not have made the subject matter as a whole
of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 8 on appeal obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection
of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1
As for the examiner’s rejections of claim 3 and claims 9
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brandon in view of McIntyre, Dernbach and FitzGerald, we have
additionally reviewed the FitzGerald patent, but, like
appellants (brief, page 8) find nothing therein that provides
for that which we have indicated above to be lacking in the
examiner’s proposed combination of Brandon, McIntyre and
Dernbach. As a further point, we note that while the examiner
has relied upon FitzGerald as teaching that Mylar is well
1The examiner’s mention of “the Murphy reference” (answer,
page 7, lines 3-4) and of replacing the valve of “Murphy”
(page 7, lines 13-15) is not understood, since no Murphy
reference has been applied in the present application and
forms no part of the rejections before us on appeal.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007