Appeal No. 2000-10297
Application No. 08/867,617
obvious to combine the applied prior art teachings in the manner
proposed. For example, we perceive no suggestion or reasonable
expectation for success regarding the Examiner’s proposal to
modify the method of Campbell to include the epoxy resin coating
of the admitted prior art in combination with the chlorinated
rubber teaching of Kei or Tibenham. In essence, therefore, the
rejection of these claims contains the same deficiency as the
rejection of claim 1. That is, the here applied prior art
simply would not have suggested a method of effecting a bond by
pressing a chlorinated surface of a rubber body against and
epoxy resin coated surface wherein the coating of epoxy resin is
cured rather than uncured as in the Campbell, Kei and Tibenham
references.
In light of the foregoing, we also cannot sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 2-7 as being unpatentable
over
Campbell in view of the admitted prior art and further in view
of either Kei or Tibenham.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007