Appeal No. 2000-2035 Page 8
Application No. 08/844,282
§ 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L.
Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984). It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejections of claims 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Papro in view of Stanek.
The rejection over Stanek in view of Lehmacher
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6-8, 10,
11, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Stanek in view of Lehmacher.
In this rejection, the examiner determined (final
rejection, p. 3) that Figures 5 and 6 of Stanek disclosed the
subject matter of claim 17 except for the bottom of the self-
closing membrane 2 having a pierceable, longitudinal fold
instead of being open-ended and that in view of the teachings
of Lehmacher it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
substitute a pierceable, longitudinal fold for the open end of
the Stanek membrane.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007