Appeal No. 2000-1296 Page 7
Application No. 08/794,869
between the applied prior art (i.e., Chabert) and the claims
at issue (e.g., claim 1) as explained below. Thus, the
examiner has not determined if the ascertained differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art (i.e., Chabert) 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.
Based on our analysis and review of Chabert and claim 1,
it is our opinion that the differences are (1) "an inner
portion having a second, outer surface shaped complementarily
to the first [inner] surface [of the outer portion] and a
somewhat bell- or cup-shaped third, inner surface," and (2)
"means for retaining the inner portion in the outer portion
with the first and second surfaces in engagement."
Since the examiner has not determined that the above-
noted differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art (i.e., Chabert) are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007