Appeal No. 1998-3278 Page 3
Application No. 08/647,881
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Haines
in view of Howell. We reverse.
OPINION
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “When the references cited by the examiner fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, the rejection is improper and will be overturned.” In re Deuel,
51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the present case, the teachings of Haines and Howell would not have taught or suggested all
of the steps of the method set forth by claim 1, the broadest claim, even if one of ordinary skill in the art
were to combine their teachings as suggested by the Examiner. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to include the elastic seals and movable mold members taught by Howell in the
process of Haines for maintaining a desired pressure within the mold cavity (Answer, page 4).
However, even if elastic seals and movable mold members were included in the process of Haines,
there would still be no suggestion of subjecting an initially liquid cross-linkable composition to an
elevated uniform pressure during curing, the composition undergoing a reduction in volume such that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007