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 obviousPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007