Appeal No. 2002-0334 Page 9
Application No. 08/779,361
Claim 5 stands rejected as being obvious5 in view of the combined teachings of
Cech and Wolford, the latter being cited for disclosing an O-ring in a cartridge for
dispensing corrosion inhibiting material. Evaluating Cech in the light of 35 U.S.C. § 103
does not cause us to alter our conclusion that it falls short of teaching the means-plus-
function structure recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Wolford does not
alleviate the shortcomings explained above with regard to Cech, and we therefore are
of the view that the combined teachings of Cech and Wolford fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 5, and we
will not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007