Appeal No. 2006-0494 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/285,801
alone, miss the mark in failing to address why the collective
teachings of Masson, which appellants acknowledge as teaching a
rubber composition in forming a support ring (paragraph bridging
pages 2 and 3 of the brief), together with Pyke’s teachings
concerning nylon grafted rubbers having properties that Masson
also desires for a support ring, would not have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter for the
reasons stated above and in the answer.2
2 We note that appellants do not contest the examiner’s obviousness
determination as to the nylon component and the teachings of Burlett relative thereto.
Nor do appellants contend that the examiner erred in determining that the claimed
amounts of the rubbers and nylon would have been within the skill of the art from the
applied references teachings. Rather, appellants base their opposition to the
examiner’s obviousness determination on an alleged lack of suggestion to combine
Masson and Pyke.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007