Appeal No. 2000-0210 Page 15
Application No. 08/893,906
In this rejection, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4)
that Paykin discloses the claimed process except for "the step
of applying a coating of anti-adhesive material to the surface
of the backing ring prior to insertion in the tool cavity to
prevent it from attaching to the polymeric material that the
sealing ring is made of." The appellants do not contest this
determination. The examiner then found that it was old and
well known to use an anti-adhesive during molding as taught by
Marquette. The examiner then concluded (answer, p. 5) that it
would have been obvious to modify Paykin, by adding an anti-
adhesive to the backing ring as taught by Marquette to prevent
Paykin's backup or reinforcing ring 46 from bonding to the
elastomeric material that the sealing ring 26 is made of.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-7) that such a
modification of Paykin would not have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. We do not agree for the reasons that follow.
First, while the appellants are correct that Paykin does
not teach the application of an anti-adhesive material to the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007