Appeal No. 2002-2065 Page 8
Application No. 09/398,688
rings be discarded, along with the structure by which it was accomplished, which in our
view would operate as a disincentive to one of ordinary skill to do so.
On the basis of the reasoning set forth above, it is our view that the combined
teachings of GB 032 and GE 085 fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 16.
The examiner has focused upon Figure 1b of EP 817 in concluding that the
teachings of this reference would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
constantly decreasing section which was lacking in GB 032. Shown in Figure 1b is a
vessel having on each end a rubber protector 10 that is attached to the vessel by an
adhesive (column 7, lines 1 and 2). The examiner has not pointed out where in EP 817
one of ordinary skill in the art is instructed that the inwardly extending portion of rubber
protector 10 provides additional strength and protection, and in the absence of such the
examiner’s conclusion that this would be the case (Answer, page 4) is unsupported. In
addition, as was the case with GE 085, modification of GB 032 in accordance with the
teachings of EP 817 would require that the removable feature of the primary reference
be discarded. Therefore, GB 032 and EP 817 also do not establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to claim 16, and the rejection is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 2-16 is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007