Appeal No. 2001-2563
Application No. 08/814,757
A reading of appellants’ specification and claim 12 makes it
quite clear to us that a significant feature of the claimed
invention is the tensioned first and second walls of the at least
one sealing gasket assembly with its first and second sealing
elements defining respective first and second semi-circular
openings. Of the Guest, Merry, and Suzuki patents applied by the
examiner, it is at once quite apparent to this panel of the board
that not a single one teaches or would have been suggestive of
the noted feature in appellants’ claim 12. In other words, the
rejections before us provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of the
aforementioned feature, when it is EVIDENCE that is the essential
underpinning of rejections under U.S.C. 103(a). The examiner’s
attempt to shore up the lack of evidence by reliance upon the
Kuhle decision is clearly misplaced on the facts of the present
case (final rejection, pages 4 and 5). Since the rejections lack
sound evidence of obviousness as to the claimed subject matter,
the respective rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) cannot be
sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained any of
the rejections on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007