Appeal No. 2005-2180 Page 2
Application No. 10/051,417
also rejected the subject matter of claim 6 over the combined teachings of Mochizuki
and Santella, and further in view of design choice. (Answer, pp. 4-6). We select
claims 4 and 6 as representative.
Claim 4 specified that the valve cover is fabricated from a plastic material. The
Examiner relies on the Santella for disclosing the suitability of forming combustion
engine parts from thermoplastic materials. (Answer, p. 4). With regard to claim 6, the
Examiner asserts that the specifically stated polymer composition would have been
encompassed by the teaching of Santella and that Appellants have not exhibited
unexpected results for the stated composition. (Answer, p. 5). The Appellants have
not specifically rebutted the Examiner=s determinations. Thus, for the reasons stated
above and in the Answer we affirm the rejection of these claims.
Regarding Group IV we select claim 22 as representative. Santella discloses
the presence of securing flange (20) which aids in holding the valve cover in place.
Thus, use of such fastening means would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art.
Appellants arguments present in the Reply Brief have been noted. Appellants
have not indicated in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has raised new issues in the
Answer. The issues raised by Appellants are substantially the same as have been
raised in the principle brief and addressed above.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007