Appeal No. 1999-2492 Page 5
Application No. 08/801,676
Rather FR 2,303,843 describes a rubber/metal bonding system
that includes an adhesive layer that may correspond to
appellant’s adhesive layer and a rubber primer, which rubber
primer the examiner has not clearly established as
corresponding with appellant’s specifically claimed rubber
primer layer.
To make up for those deficiencies of FR 2,303,843, the
examiner relies on White or Iwasa, and the alleged admitted
prior art. However, the examiner has not identified a
particularized suggestion, reason or motivation to combine the
applied references or make the proposed modification of FR
2,303,843 in a manner so as to arrive at the claimed invention
as is required for a sustainable rejection. See In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Rather, the examiner merely offers conclusory remarks
and makes generalized statements regarding the applied
references and the proposed combination thereof in the answer.
The other references applied by the examiner in rejecting
claims 1-5 and 14 and 15 do not remedy the above-noted
shortcomings. Thus, even if we could agree that the examiner
has established the referred to portions of the specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007