Appeal No. 2000-1415
Application 09/197,947
simply an alternative in the art for the arrangement of the
seal 70 and exhaust flange 13 of Pickard.
Notwithstanding the above obvious modifications of the
Pickard teaching, like appellants (brief, pages 8 and 9), we
recognize that differences remain between the claimed subject
matter and the applied prior art. From our perspective, the
evidence of obviousness before us simply would not have been
suggestive to one having ordinary skill in the art of first
and second cone shaped portions that “directly intersect” as
required by claim 20, nor of a second cone shaped portion “at
an angle of taper less than” the angle of taper of the first
cone shaped portion as specified in claim 23. In the present
case, as to the “directly intersect” recitation, in
particular, it is our opinion that this difference cannot be
dismissed as simply an obvious matter of ordinary design.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007