Appeal No. 2001-1405
Application No. 09/207,766
Tillenburg 4,240,530 Dec. 23, 1980
The admitted prior art on page 1, lines 10 to 14 and 20 to 25, and on page 3, lines
5 to 9 of appellant’s specification (AAPA-1).1
All the appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over AAPA-1 in view of Tillenburg.2
First considering claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, the salient portion
of AAPA-1 appears to be at page 3, lines 5 to 9, where appellant discloses:
A process for production of fittings is known from DE 196 03 548 A1, in
which the fittings are assembled from separately manufactured parts.
However, this publication only very generally discusses a bonding means
that is applied between the base and processing element, but specifically
identifies the very expensive high-temperature vacuum welding process or
gluing processes.
The examiner states that this disclosure teaches all the subject matter recited in claim 1
except for placing elastic bonding material between contact surfaces of the base and
processing element and elastically bonding the base and processing element.
1On page 3 of the answer, the examiner identifies AAPA-1 as being at page 3, lines 5 to 9, of
appellant’s specification, but at page 4 of the answer, states that AAPA-1 is from page 1, lines 10 to 14 and
20 to 25 of the specification. In view of this discrepancy, we have considered both these parts of the
specification in evaluating the rejection.
2Three additional grounds of rejection under § 103(a) have been withdrawn by the examiner
(answer, pages 2 and 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007