Appeal No. 2007-0917 Page 7
Application No. 10/012,919
evidence on this record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not expect
to obtain the same result with PTFE, particularly given that Ishiwari teach that
either PTFE or modified PTFE can be used in the extrusion method as
recognized by appellants (Brief, page 9), as well as Loomis (Declaration,
paragraph 6) and Scola (Declaration, paragraph 5).
On reflection, we find that claim 23 would have been prima facie obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made over
Ishiwari for the same reasons set forth above. “[A] disclosure that anticipates
under § 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for ‘anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness,’ In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA
1982).” Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716,
223 USPQ 1264, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Claims 25, 26, 36, and 38-40 fall
together with claim 23.
The combination of Trescony, Golds and Ishiwari:
Claims 23 and 25-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Trescony, Golds, and Ishiwari. The
examiner relies on Trescony to teach, inter alia, that it was known that thin walled
tubular members of PTFE could be assembled together. Answer, page 7. The
examiner relies on Golds to teach, inter alia, a method of assembling tubular
members of PTFE. Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 8-9. In addition, the
examiner relies on Ishiwari as set forth above. Answer, page 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013