Appeal No. 2000-1415
Application 09/197,947
We cannot sustain the rejection of appellants’ claims
under 35 35 U.S.C. § § 103.
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 3
conclusion, as did the examiner, that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, from a
combined consideration of the Pickard, Gaddy, and Izzi, Sr.
disclosures, to modify the closet ring 30 and seal means 56 of
Gaddy, as proposed by the examiner. As we see it, the
threaded conical spiggot section 24 and annular expansion
sealing sleeve 36 of Gaddy would have been readily appreciated
by one having ordinary skill as an alternative in the art to
the second annular portion 54 and seal means 56 of Pickard.
Additionally, it is clear to us, as it apparently was to the
examiner, that one having ordinary skill would have viewed the
gasket construction 30 of Izzi, Sr., with its central sealing
ring 31 engaging a sloped surface 33 of the flange unit 20, as
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007