Appeal No. 2000-1517
Application 08/850,470
Moreover, since the proposed combination of Whalley and
Yamaguchi rests on the examiner’s unfounded characterization
of Whalley’s spacer 15 as a sealing material/member, it too is
unsound. Simply put, there is nothing in the disparate
teachings of these two references which would have suggested
replacing Whalley’s spacer 15 with an elastic silicone resin
stopper ring of the sort 7 disclosed by Yamaguchi.
Finally, even if the proposed modification of Whalley in
view of Yamaguchi were made, there is nothing in Yamaguchi’s
disclosure of the elastic silicone resin stopper ring 7 to
indicate that it possesses the mechanical, physical and
thermal characteristics specified in claim 1. The examiner’s
apparent assumption that all silicones embody such
characteristics is completely unfounded.
Hence, the combined teachings of Whalley and Yamaguchi do
not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in claim 1 and the prior
art 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. Accordingly, we shall not sustain
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007