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, Severinsen and Tzeng is set forth on page 4 of the
answer. In this instance the examiner contends that Goodloe and
Severinsen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, “but
fail to disclose the layer to be made of fluorosilicone.” The
examiner then notes that Tzeng teaches that a conductive gasket
can be made of fluorosilicone or silicone (col. 2, lines 30-33),
and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made “to have the
layer of Severinsen to be formed from fluorosilicone.” Be that as
it may, even if such a substitution were made, we find nothing in
the teachings of Tzeng which provides for or otherwise overcomes
that which we have indicated above to be lacking in the teachings
of the basic combination of Goodloe and Severinsen. Thus, this
rejection fails for the same reasons as set forth above, and
therefore will not be sustained.
As is apparent from the foregoing, it is our determination
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to claim 19 on appeal. Thus, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007