Appeal No. 2000-10297
Application No. 08/867,617
OPINION
These rejections cannot be sustained.
We agree with the Appellant that the combined teachings of
Huber and the admitted prior art would not have suggested the
method of appealed claim 1 including particularly the forming
and pressing steps thereof. At best, Huber and the admitted
prior art would have suggested pressing a neoprene rubber body
(which inherently contains a chlorinated surface) against an
uncured adhesive coating or layer between the rubber body and a
metal surface (e.g., see the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2
of Huber). In contrast, as correctly explained by the Appellant
in the brief and especially the reply brief, appealed claim 1
requires “pressing said chlorinated surface [of the rubber body]
against said epoxy resin-coated surface” wherein the coating of
epoxy resin is cured as recited in the forming step of appealed
claim 1.
It follows that we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of appealed claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Huber in view of the admitted prior art.
As for the § 103 rejection of appealed claims 2-7, we do
not share the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007