Appeal No. 2001-1567 Page 5
Application No. 09/044,455
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the method claims under appeal require an injector to
be held in or within about one-half inch of gaps formed in a
stopping installed in a mine passageway and injecting a fluent
sealing material under pressure into those gaps to form a seal
yieldable under stress to maintain its integrity in the event
of a mine convergence. However, it is our view that these
limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art. In
that regard, while Kennedy does teach caulking gaps formed in
a stopping installed in a mine passageway and the RHH Brochure
does teach that fluent sealing material under pressure can be
used to fill voids, cracks and crevices, the combined
teachings of Kennedy and the RHH Brochure do not teach or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007