Appeal No. 2005-1042
Application No. 09/759,543
claim before us in assessing the merits of the above noted
rejections.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as
being unpatentable over Goss in view of Richardson. However, we
will sustain each of the other rejections advanced on this
appeal. Our reasons follow.
According to the examiner:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to make the level/article, disclosed by Goss, of a
synthetic coated foamed aluminum, as taught by
Richardson, so as to have a light weighted, durable
level less susceptible to the harsh environment with
the porous structure protected inside from possible
contamination and moisture, in order to maintain
accuracy and longevity of the device [answer, pages 5-
6].
While Richardson may disclose a synthetic coated foamed aluminum
as indicated by the examiner, this disclosure is in the context
of an inflator device for a vehicle air bag system. There is
utterly nothing in Richardson’s disclosure which would have
suggested using a synthetic coated foamed aluminum as a material
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007