Appeal No. 2006-1761
Application No. 10/153,074
an epoxy as an example (col. 8, ll. 39-47), Koschany also
specifically teaches achieving “particularly firm adhesion” by
using silicone adhesive (col. 10, ll. 6-9).
Kovar admittedly discloses the same silicone sealants as
recited in claim 1 on appeal (Reply Brief, page 2). Kovar also
teaches the advantages of using this sealing composition in
“gaskets in the automotive and engineering sectors,” such
advantages including very good mechanical properties, low cost,
low compression set, and good reproducibility and long shelf life
(col. 7, l. 64-col. 8, l. 18). Kovar also teaches numerous
advantages in processing, including that a “low compression
set is advantageous for numerous applications in the field of
sealing technology, e.g.[,] O-rings, valve-cover gaskets, sealing
lips . . . ” (col. 8, ll. 37-51). Therefore we agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in this art to use the specific silicone sealant disclosed by
Kovar for the sealing ring of Koschany for the advantages taught
by Kovar for rings and gaskets in the automotive and engineering
sealing arts. Regarding appellants’ “‘obvious to try’” argument
(Brief, page 10), we note that the same argument was made in In
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007