Appeal No. 2002-2065 Page 6
Application No. 09/398,688
The second of the appellants’ arguments to which we refer is that there exists no
evidence that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of GE 085 or EP
817 with those of GB 032 in the manner proposed by the examiner. In the explanation
of the rejection of claim 16, the examiner concedes that GB 032 fails to disclose or
teach the required “section extending past a connection point of the arc-shaped ring
with the intermediate ring toward a center of the one of the bottom and the cover” which
constantly decreases in thickness to its inner edge. However, the examiner is of the
view that such a feature is taught by either of the two secondary references, and it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “incorporate such a section
. . . into the structure of GB 032 for the purpose of strengthening the reinforcement and
protection of the bottom or cover” (Answer, page 4).
GE 085 also is mentioned by the appellants on page 3 of their specification. The
appellants there comment that the ring structure shown therein is intended to provide
high resistance to vessel body, but is formed of a polymer material having metallic parts
secured therein, which has the disadvantages a large expenditure of material, high
manufacturing costs, and the creation of gaps which allow the accumulation of dirt and
moisture. GE 085 explains that previous polymer protective rings were adhesively
attached to the vessels, but could become detached if the adhesive failed (translation,
pages 2 and 3). This reference seeks to improve upon the prior art devices by
attaching the polymer rims to the vessel by incorporating a metal element into each and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007