Appeal 2006-3169
Application 09/829,883
6. The Examiner did not rely on Nowak for any teaching or suggestion
to provide a bond between a resilient member and a shroud angled segment
inner surface.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner erred in finding that body 3 is initially bonded to the
portion of the inner surface of housing 1 to which the “anti-stick” flux
coating is applied. Saurer clearly teaches that body 3 is not bonded to the
inner surface of housing 1 in the area that normally contacts the coated
portion of housing 1; rather, body 3 is free to draw away from housing 1 to
form an air cavity upon application of a load (Findings of Fact 3-5).
Saurer’s body 3 is not bonded to any part of the flaring portion of housing 1
(Finding of Fact 3) and therefore does not satisfy the “said single resilient
member bonded to said shroud angled segment inner surface” limitation of
independent claims 1 and 12. The Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12, and claims 2, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 depending from
claims 1 and 12, is grounded in part on the Examiner’s erroneous finding
that Saurer’s body 3 is initially bonded to the “anti-stick” composition
coated flaring portion of housing 1 and thus cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013