Appeal No. 2001-2235 Page 4
Application No. 08/699,660
9. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected over Knowlton ‘610 in view of Shinjo and further in view of
Hughes.
10. Claims 11-13 stand rejected over Knowlton ‘129 in view of Hughes.
11. Claims 20-23 stand rejected over Knowlton ‘129 in view of Shinjo.
12. Clams 24 and 25 stand rejected over Knowlton ‘129 in view of Shinjo and further in view of
Hughes.
We reverse with respect to all of the rejections for the reasons that follow.
OPINION
A rejection based on § 103(a) clearly must rest on a factual basis grounded in the prior
art. The Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for the rejection. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Any deficiencies in the
factual basis may not be filled using speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 1-20 are all directed to a method of sealing a bore wherein the sealing element is
“heat softenable and plastically deformable.” These claims further require steps of heating the
sealing element to a “heat softened plastically deformable temperature” which is below the
melting temperature of the sealing element and mechanically deforming the sealing element at
that temperature.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007