Appeal No. 2002-0552
Application No. 09/117,603
tar. To account for this difference, the examiner has made the
following observations on page 4 of the answer,
[t]he definition of "tar" is (a) "a dark brown or black
bituminous usually odorous viscous liquid obtained by
destructive distillation of organic material . . ." or
(b) "a substance in some respects resembling tar . . .
." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.,
1993 (emphasis added). Bitumen is defined as "any of
various mixtures of hydrocarbons (as tar) often
together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur
naturally . . . ." Id. Arnett discloses a tar sealant
for sealing an electrical connector (col. 11, Lines 21-
30) which is a liquid when applied and which is cured
after application. Note that Arnett uses the term
"coating" as meaning a "sealant." Col. 6, lines 33-47,
col. 1, line 40. At the time of the invention, it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to use the Arnett tar sealant in the Suzuki
device. The suggestion or motivation for doing so
would have been to take advantage of the Arnett
sealant's good dielectric properties, resistance to
water, and other desirable properties as taught in
Arnett (col. 11, lines 25-30).
Appellant points out that claim 3 on appeal defines the
sealant therein as being "pure tar which is liquid when applied
and which then cures after application." Appellant then contends
that the coal-tar and epoxy mix for corrosion inhibition of metal
surfaces referred to by the examiner in Arnett (col. 11, lines
21-30) is not "pure tar," and further urges that there is nothing
in Arnett which would suggest the use of "pure tar" as a sealant
against electrical leads in a housing of the type defined in
claim 3 on appeal.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007