Ex Parte Ball - Page 5



           Appeal No. 2006-2338                                          Page 5                  
           Application No. 10/326,449                                                               
                 We find explicit motivation in the Taylor reference itself to combine its          
           teaching with the common inverted L-shaped overflow system that would have led           
           one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention.  In particular, as noted by   
           the examiner on page 3 of the Answer, Taylor teaches that it was known in the            
           prior art to use an expandable plug, such as a dollar plug with an expandable            
           rubber “accordion” washer, to seal an overflow drain port during pressure testing.       
           Taylor, col. 1, lines 15-36.  We find, thus, that Taylor teaches using the same          
           expandable plug for the same purpose of sealing an overflow drain port during leak       
           testing as in the claimed invention.  One having ordinary skill in the art at the time   
           the invention was made, possessed with the teaching of Taylor and the knowledge          
           that L-shaped overflow systems were common in the art, would have been led to            
           apply an expandable plug to an L-shaped overflow system to seal the overflow port        
           during testing, because the L-shaped overflow system is just another type of             
           commonly-used drain overflow system, on which leak testing must be performed.            
           As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the       
           time the invention was made to have used such an expandable plug on a common             
           inverted L-shaped overflow drain system in order to perform leak testing as taught       
           by Taylor.                                                                               
                 The appellant also argues that there is no motivation to use an expandable         
           plug as claimed to seal the overflow drain port, because Taylor discourages the use      
           of expandable plugs for this purpose due to their tendency to blow out under             
           pressure.  Brief, p. 9.  Even if Taylor discourages the use of expandable plugs for      
           the purpose of pressure testing, it still does not remove the fact that expandable       
           plugs had been used in the prior art for this purpose.  See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d        
           551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A known or obvious                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007