Appeal No. 1999-2241
Application No. 08/714,914
matter of appealed claim 21 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(Id. at pages 3 and 4-5.)
Moreover, as we discussed above, the appellants acknowledge
that Frant discloses or suggests an electrode in which the
membrane is press-fitted against a gasket on one side and a
sealing compound on the other. To use another gasket in lieu of
the sealing compound would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art, because Frant teaches that a gasket
and a sealing compound are alternatives for purposes of securing
the membrane in the electrode. On this point, we determine, that
the motivation to replace the sealing compound with another
gasket also arises from the reasonable expectation that the use
of a gasket would eliminate the need for applying and/or curing
the sealing compound to join the membrane (24) onto annular
flange (27) as well as facilitate ease of separating the
components of the electrode during maintenance.
Regarding appealed claim 40, the appellants' specification
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007