Ex Parte Thrift et al - Page 4




               Appeal No. 2003-1727                                                                                              
               Application No. 09/589,015                                                                                        


                      Recognizing that Chisnell does not disclose the claimed sealing means, the examiner relies                 
               on the disclosure of Sylvester.  See, e.g., the Answer, page 5.  However, we observe that Sylvester is            
               directed to a self-adhesive reinforced foam gasket for use in                                                     
                      automotive industry such as a gasket for inside the glove box, for the outside mirror,                     
                      around where the seat belt attaches to the floor, as a seal around the top of the fuel                     
                      tank filling tube, around audio speakers in the front and back of the car, around cut-                     
                      outs in the dash for air conditioning ducting, around the inside of the door, to act as a                  
                      secondary seal around the opera window, and to act as a secondary seals around the                         
                      trunk lid... As is apparent, the invented gasket material can be used in similar gasket                    
                      application outside the automotive industry.  These gaskets principally cushion and                        
                      seal against wind, noise and moisture.  See column 4, lines 50-65, column 2, lines                         
                      43-59 and column 1, lines 23-26.                                                                           
               As correctly stated by the appellants (Brief, page 7), “[t]he gasket disclosed in Sylvester and the O-            
               ring 28 disclosed in Chisnell perform different functions which would lead one of ordinary skill in               
               the art to the conclusion that the gasket and the O-ring 28 are not interchangeable.”  In other words,            
               the  applied prior art references do not reveal that in so employing the gasket described in Sylvester            
               in the high pressure fluid conducting systems described in Chisnell, one of ordinary skill in the art             
               would have a reasonable expectation of success in preventing leakage of fluid, such as refrigerant                
               gas.  In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  Nor do they                         
               provide any motivation or suggestion to replace the effective sealing means described in Chisnell                 
               with a gasket untested in a harsh condition, such as the one described in Sylvester.  Vaeck, 947 F.2d             
               at 493, 20 USPQ2d at 1442.  To do so would destroy the invention on which Chisnell is based.  Ex                  
               parte Hartmann, 186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App. 1974).                                                                


                                                               4                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007