Appeal No. 2000-0652 Page 8
Application No. 08/868,774
plastic material of body 1 would be a softer material than the
metal support 2) is necessarily present, and that it would be
so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. In fact, in view
of Ben Moura's specific teaching that the body 1 be either
plastic or metal, it is our opinion that Ben Moura suggests
that the material of body 1 have the same hardness/softness as
the material of support 2. Additionally, we note that there
is no evidence in the record establishing that all plastic
materials are softer than all metals.
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner has failed
to establish that all the limitations of claims 1 and 29 are
met by Ben Moura. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
to reject independent claims 1 and 29, and claims 5 to 7, 9 to
12, 30 and 31 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 8
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007