Appeal No. 2002-2092
Application 09/328,467
Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 and 7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we note that
the examiner has determined that Passaniti (e.g., Fig. 4A)
discloses all of the elements of appellants’ independent claims 1
and 7 on appeal except for a hole in the cylindrical or hub
portion of the gasket wherein the hole is open at the top and
bottom and wherein the lower opening is larger than the upper
one. To account for this difference, the examiner points to the
teachings of Georgopoulos and the hole (15) in the hub portion of
the gasket seen in Figures 1 and 3 thereof, urging that this
patent teaches making a hole in the hub portion of a gasket of
the configuration claimed by appellants so that the insertion
stresses associated with inserting the current collector (13) are
absorbed at the top or first end thereof. From the collective
teachings of the applied patents, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time appellants’ invention was made to form the hole of
Passaniti’s gasket in the manner taught in Georgopoulos so as to
permit it to absorb insertion stresses when the current collector
is inserted therein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007