Appeal No. 2002-2286
Application 09/706,252
The examiner’s reasoning in rejecting claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of the collective teachings of
Goodloe and Severinsen is set forth on pages 3-4 of the answer.
Essentially, the examiner is of the view that it would have been
obvious to have the conductive seal of Goodloe “replaced by the
conductive seal of Severinsen, to provide a further conductive
seal and a seal that is able to bend and stressed on [sic].”
Recognizing that such combination of Goodloe and Severinsen would
still not address appellants’ method step of providing a layer of
fluorosilicone as required in claim 19, the examiner urges that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made “to make the layer of silicone
polyurethane of Severinsen to be replaced by fluorosilicone,
since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker
in the art to select a know [sic] material on the basis of its
suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design
choice,” citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416,
418 (CCPA 1960).
Like appellants, we find nothing in either Goodloe or
Severinsen which teaches or suggests a method of electrically
conductively bonding opposing mating surfaces as set forth in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007