Appeal No. 2006-2338 Page 6
Application No. 10/326,449
composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as
somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.”) The applicant has
asserted no discovery beyond what was obvious in view of the prior art.
The appellant further contends that the claimed resilient washer, having a
smooth and continuous outer perimeter, solves the problem of blow out and is an
unobvious improvement over the accordion-style dollar plug disclosed in Taylor.
Brief, p. 9. We see no difference between the resilient washer disclosed in Taylor
and the claimed resilient washer.
Claim 4 recites, “an expandable plug having a resilient washer with a
smooth and continuous outer perimeter.” The dollar plug shown in Figure 1 of
Taylor includes a larger rubber washer (13) having raised areas completely
encircling the washer to form bellows, similar to an accordion. Each raised area is
a strip that forms a smooth and continuous perimeter about the washer. Similarly,
the perimeter of the washer taken about the valley between adjacent raised strips is
also shown as smooth and continuous in Figure 1. The appellant’s claims do not
further limit the shape of the outer surface of the resilient washer to distinguish it
from the accordion-style washer of Taylor. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor in view of AAPA.
Claim 6
The examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Taylor, AAPA and Ball. The examiner found that Ball teaches that it is
common practice to associate a “cover” with an overflow opening and thus it
would have been obvious to associate a cover with the Taylor overflow opening in
order to enhance appearance. Answer, p. 4. The appellant did not separately argue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007