Appeal No. 2004-1269 Page 3
Application No. 09/649,157
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Wlodkowski et al. (Wlodkowski) 4,363,462 Dec. 14, 1982
Sorkin 5,839,235 Nov. 14, 1998
Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sorkin alone or in a separate rejection
in view of Wlodkowski.
We refer to the brief and the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellant and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellant’s viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223
USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
The examiner acknowledges that the “protrusion and
indentation relationship in the connection of the seal 12 and the
tubular portion 16 of Sorkin” (final rejection, page 2) are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007