Appeal No. 2005-0487
Application No. 09/961,821
of the manner in which the O-rings are intended to function
ostensibly belies the examiner’s position.
Hence, the examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter
recited in independent claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art is not well founded. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and
6, and dependent claims 3, 7 and 8, as being unpatentable over
Ludwig.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 as
being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Freitag
As the examiner’s application of Freitag does not cure the
foregoing deficiencies of Ludwig with respect to the subject
matter recited in parent claims 1 and 6, we also shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view
of Freitag.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007