Appeal 2007-1376
Application 10/677,870
drawings of Takenaka, Repella, and Johnen are to scale. As correctly set
forth by the Examiner, the proper standard in evaluating the references is
what they reasonably would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As a result of applying this standard to the reference drawings, we have no
doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
drawings as depicting an amount of elastic deformation of the second seal
lip as falling within the broadly claimed range. Significantly, Appellants
have not advanced any contrary rationale which would support an argument
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the elastic
deformation taught by the references is outside the claimed range. Nor have
Appellants set forth an argument explaining why it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the second seal lip of
JP ‘396 to have an elastic deformation falling within the claimed range.
Appellants’ bald argument that the reference drawings are not disclosed as
being to scale is no substitute for the requisite rebuttal of the reasonable
inferences made by the Examiner from the applied prior art. Moreover, we
find that it would have been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill
in the art to determine the optimum elastic deformation of the second seal lip
that maximizes the sealing function of the apparatus. In re Boesch, 671 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results attributed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013