Appeal No. 2002-1444 Page 6
Application No. 09/004,564
he has contended. From our perspective, if proper suggestion to combine the
references were found to exist, the result would be to substitute the entire seal of
Heinecke for the entire seal of Peterson, which would not meet the terms of the claims.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of Peterson taken in view of
those of Heinecke do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in independent claims 20 and 21. This being the case, we will
not sustain this rejection of claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 20 and 21.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 14, 20, and 21 also stand rejected over Heinecke in view of
Peterson. In this rejection, the examiner asserts that Heinecke includes each of the
claimed limitations except for the layer of elastomeric material, but opines that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Heinecke by adding this
feature to back the liner 32 “to provide a better seal” (Answer, page 4). As was the
case with the first rejection of these claims, this rejection also is based upon the
presumption that the liners of both references are flexible (Answer, pages 4 and 6), a
conclusion which we found above not to be supported by any evidence. The
present rejection thus fails at this point. Furthermore, as above, we do not agree that
suggestion exists to combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner.
We therefore conclude that the teachings of Heinecke taken in view of those of
Peterson also fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of independent claims 20 and 21, and we will not sustain this rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007