Appeal No. 1998-2206
Application No. 08/537,143
defined connecting line surrounds the tubular part. Merely
stating that the claimed curves are “inherently disclosed”
(answer, page 4) is not persuasive. Since the evidence has
not been proven to address all limitations of claim 1, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be sustained.
Turning now to independent claim 16, we conclude that we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of this claim.
Consistent with our analysis above, it is clear to us that the
examiner has not shown that the equation governing the
curvature of the groove 22 of Monsees '408 (column 4, lines 5
through 24) establishes, in fact (or would have been
suggestive of), a connecting line as defined in independent
claim 16, which so defined connecting line surrounds the
tubular part. Merely asserting that Monsees discloses the
former (answer, page 5) is not convincing. While the Fukuda
document teaches a packaging machine, it does not overcome the
noted deficiency of the two Monsees patents. Accordingly,
since the evidence before us would not have been suggestive of
the claimed invention, the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007