Appeal No. 2005-2287
Application No. 09/767,588
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9,
17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
With regard to the rejection of claims 6, 8, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants contend that the combination of
Saito and Nakanowatari does not teach or suggest “sealing
material has a projecting portion formed by bending said sealing
material at an acute angle when said injection hole is formed.”
Appellants specifically point to Figures 2 and 8 of Saito to show
that the injection hole is of rectangular shape, formed by the
strip spacer SPC-S, and that the seal material simply conforms
around the rectangular shape of the strip spacer, but that no
portion of the strip spacer in Saito is bent at an acute angle,
as claimed.
Appellants note that Nakanowatari shows, in Figure 3, and
column 3, lines 7-10, that one part of a sealing member 3 is
opened to constitute an injection hole 5, but that Nakanowatari
does not teach or suggest that a “sealing material has a
projecting portion formed by bending said sealing material at an
acute angle when said injection hole is formed.” In particular,
note appellants, the sealing member 3 of Nakanowatari forming the
injection hole is bent at an angle greater than 90 degrees,
obtuse, rather than acute, as claimed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007