Appeal No. 2002-0174 Page 5
Application No. 09/190,373
473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “Both the suggestion
and the expectation of success must be founded in the prior art,
not in the applicant’s disclosure." Id.
Here, we agree with appellants (brief, pages 5 and 6) that
the combination of the teachings of the applied references would
not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to either the
particular pressure roller construction or tripartite nozzle
outlet as here claimed as part of a welding apparatus. The
examiner has not shown where Hubbard describes a pressure roller
construction with a groove between distal and proximal ends
thereof, which groove carries an elastomeric cushion as claimed
that would have been suggested as an obvious substitute for the
weld wheel (36, figure 3) of Murphy. Rather, Hubbard, describes
a single weld wheel (numeral 63, figure 7 and column 7, lines 29-
42), which weld wheel is made of durometer material having a soft
middle portion and hard outer portion. Also, Chitjian describes
a steel wheel (18, figures 1 and 4) that does not apparently
include a groove and which wheel may be covered with an outer
cover of heat resistant silicone rubber (column 3, lines 45-48).
The examiner has not established how the combined teachings of
Murphy, Hubbard and Chitjian would have reasonably suggested
making a weld wheel as here claimed from isolated pieces of each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007