Appeal No. 1998-2484 Page 6
Application No. 08/212,819
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole. See id.;
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, and 8-
13 based on the teachings of JP’313 in view of Sweeny and1
Bawa.
The appellants state (brief, page 7) that claim 2 recites
“a liquid packing injected into said flange-fastening-means
inserting holes” and assert (id.) that neither JP’313 nor
Sweeny shows a liquid packing. According to the appellants
(id.), Bawa teaches the use of a curable fluid material 15.
However, in Bawa, there is no liquid packing between the gland
nut 28 and the connector body 24. Appellants maintain (id.)
that there is therefore no suggestion to relocate the curable
fluid material to a location corresponding to the flange-
fastening-means inserting holes. The examiner’s position
1In determining the teachings of JP’313, we will rely on the
translation provided by the USPTO. A copy of the translation is attached for
the appellants convenience.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007