Appeal No. 2005-2180 Page 2
Application No. 10/051,417
same or slightly different, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants argue AMochizuki discloses anaerobically curing adhesive
compositions; see col. 1, lines 64 to col. 2, line 49. The adhesive is designed to seal
joints in automobile engines, see col. 1, lines 16-20. Note this passage indicates that
the adhesive can be used to seal head covers to engine heads. The reference does
not disclose the features recited hereinbefore.@ (Brief, p. 6).
These arguments are not persuasive. As recognized above by Appellants,
Mochizuki discloses that the adhesive can be used to seal head covers to engine
heads. Appellants have not adequately explained why this disclosure fails to render
the subject matter of claim 1 unpatentable. Appellants have not directed us to
evidence that the adhesive strength disclosed by Mochizuki is not suitable to hold a
valve cover in place during normal operating conditions.
Appellants argue, Brief page 7, that Japanese Patent 61-218754 and Frohwerk
et al., U.S. Patent 5,957,100, describe a head cover secured to an engine head using
nuts and bolts. Appellants have also cited six additional references in the Reply Brief
for similar teachings. These arguments are noted. However, these references do not
necessarily indicate that the adhesive disclosed by Mochizuki can only be used with
nuts and bolts as a fastening means for a valve cover and engine head as argued by
Appellants. We again reiterate that Appellants have not directed us to evidence that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007