Appeal No. 2004-1666 Page 7
Application No. 09/586,912
entrance into a housing for electrical equipment or of the need to include an insecticide
in the ingredients of the seal, or that there is an advantage to utilizing a seal that is
flexible in its final set state. Third, Isgur discloses a sheet material usable for reinforcing
fabrics and the like, and does not suggest that it can be utilized in such a fashion as to
seal around the perimeter of an opening in a housing and around the conduits
extending through the opening, nor does it appear that it is capable of doing so. Fourth,
absent the teachings found in the appellants' specification, there is no suggestion that
the recited adhesives be mixed into the sealant.
For these reasons, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Grannis,
Isgur and the admitted prior art fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we therefore will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2 and 3, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 6, 8, 10 and 11 are directed to methods of sealing around
conduits. Each method includes utilizing a sealant that is flexible in its final form, as well
as incorporating a quantity of contact poison insecticide in the sealant material. With
regard to the rejections of these claims, we initially note that the examiner has failed to
explain where any of the claimed steps are taught by the references, and how the
references would be combined in order to render the claimed methods obvious.
Lacking such specificity, the applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of the method claims, and we will not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007