Appeal No. 2000-1142 Page 7
Application No. 08/753,230
sealing lips. (Answer, p. 5). According to Peras, the rim (component 18) functions to
prevent the passage of fluids such as air. (Col. 2, ll. 46 to 48). We note this is the same
function as the sealing lip of Brimberg. Peras also discloses the rim can include a groove
(component 31) which renders the rim more flexible. (Col. 3, ll. 14 to 16). Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the method of Brimberg
wherein the mold or die included a grove at the base of the sealing lip in order to improve
the flexibility at the pivot point of the resulting sealing lip.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, based on the totality
of the record, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of
obviousness, giving due weight to Appellants’ arguments and evidence. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 to 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Brimberg, Wolf and Pears is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007