Appeal No. 2001-2354
Application No. 09/186,687
benefits of a fluid tight seal (column 8, lines 12 through 14)
and a cushioning effect (column 9, lines 17 through 20).
The argument of appellants (main brief, pages 11 through 14,
and reply brief, pages 6 and 7) fails to convince us that the
examiner erred in rejecting claim 15. We do not share
appellants’ point of view that the rejection is based upon
impermissible hindsight (main brief, page 12). Clearly, the
Pawlick reference instructs those having ordinary skill to apply
a resilient grommet when sealing a tube to a header plate 14 with
a header tank manifold 13 above (Fig. 1); the latter
configuration being akin to the arrangement in Goetz of tubes
126, header plate 130, and tank 122. Thus, we are in basic
agreement with the view of the examiner regarding claim 15
(answer, page 11).
The third rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 since it depends
from claim 11, the rejection of which latter claim we did not
sustain, supra, and since the three applied references would not
have been suggestive of the claimed subject matter.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007