Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
ordinary skill in the art. Rather, Appellant argues that there is no motivation
to modify the Roeder closure so as to include a plurality of ribs to support
the collar. However, the rejection is not based on an explicit motivation to
substitute ribs for a bead but rather on the equivalence of ribs and beads and
therefore the interchangeability of beads and ribs. In the absence of a
challenge to the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Roeder.
Claim 23 recites that the collar of the sealing device has a hardness in
the region of approximately 20 to approximately 80 shore A. The sealing
element disclosed in Roeder has some undisclosed shore hardness. The
Appellant has not shown that the particular shore hardness claimed would
result in unexpected results. We have found that it is within the skill of a
person of ordinary skill to find the optimum shore hardness for the collar.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder. We will also sustain the
rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over
Krueger for the reasons stated here regarding the shore hardness and for the
reasons stated above in our discussion above of this rejection as it is directed
to claim 11.
DECISION
On the record before us, Appellant has shown error in the rejection of
claims 11 to 35 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, and we will
therefore not sustain this rejection. The Appellant has not shown error in the
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013