Appeal No. 2002-1444 Page 5
Application No. 09/004,564
flexible, and they are not backed by a layer of elastomeric material and do not
constitute one layer of a multilayered seal.
The appellant points out on page 9 of the Brief that the claims require the liner
panels to comprise a “flexible layer of plastic material,” and argues that such is not
taught by either of the references. The Examiner’s response to this is to assert that the
liner panels 24 of Peterson and 32 of Heinecke inherently would be “flexible” because
they are “long” and “thin” (Answer, pages 5-6). We do not agree, for there is no
evidence in either of the references to support this conclusion. Therefore, we agree
with the appellants that even if the references were combined in the manner proposed
by the examiner, the resulting structure would not meet the terms of the claims.
Further, even assuming, arguendo, that the plastic liners 32 of Heinecke are
flexible, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either reference
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Peterson valve by
replacing the steel guide plate 24 with a plastic guide plate, other than the hindsight
acquired by one who first reviewed the appellants’ disclosure. In this regard, the
evidence adduced by the examiner does not provide reasons why one of ordinary skill
in the art would be motivated to make this modification, that is, replace the metal
portion of the Peterson liner with plastic material while retaining the elastomeric portion.
In particular, there is no evidence to support the examiner’s conclusion that to do so
would result in less abrasion and corrosion and would make the seal more simple, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007