Appeal No. 2000-0203
Application No. 08/924,099
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The appellant
also argues that, within the context of the proposed reference
combination, the elastomeric sealing members disclosed by
Jelinek “are not proper and can not provide the sufficient
elasticity in the invention” (brief, page 8). It is not
apparent, however, nor has the appellant cogently explained,
why sealing members of the sort disclosed by Jelinek lack
response to the sealing member limitations recited in claim 1.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of
Udagawa and Jelinek justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claim 1 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1 as being unpatentable over Udagawa in view of Jelinek.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 7 and 8 as being unpatentable
over Udagawa in view of Jelinek since these claims stand or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007