Appeal No. 2005-1125 6
Application No. 10/144,328
contains no suggestion for assembling McCormick’s separately
formed sheath tube, resilient stop pad and end cap to form a
preassembled unit which can stand independently of the piston rod
and container tube as recited in claim 1.
Thus, the combined teachings of McCormick and Fotino do not
justify a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in independent claim 1 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 6
through 8 and 11 through 13, as being unpatentable over McCormick
in view of Fotino.
As the examiner’s application of Fichtel and Handke does not
cure the foregoing shortcomings of McCormick and Fotino relative
to parent claim 1, we also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5 and 10 as
being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Fotino and Fichtel,
or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claim 9 as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007