Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 8
Application No. 08/710,554
Rejection 5
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 57 to 60, 62 to 65 and 70 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inland [illegible] Products Company in view
of Doi and Schmitt-Raiser.
After reviewing the teachings of Inland [illegible] Products Company, Doi and
Schmitt-Raiser, we find no suggestion, teaching or motivation therein for a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Inland
[illegible] Products Company to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Specifically, it is
our opinion that Doi and Schmitt-Raiser would not have made it obvious to the skilled
artisan to have modified the flange 10 of Inland [illegible] Products Company to include
a flat adhesive depression containing an adhesive means to provide an adhesive
surface substantially flush with the contact surface. As such, the examiner has not
presented a prima facie case of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 57
to 60, 62 to 65 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inland
[illegible] Products Company in view of Doi and Schmitt-Raiser is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007