Appeal 2007-1555
Application 09/900,442
affirm the rejection of these claims for the same reasons as set forth for claims 1-3,
8-15. Claims 47 and 48 thus fall with claim 1.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7 and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) using the combination of Headrick, Fehr, Hellstrom, Snyder, and Tabor
for the reasons given for our affirmance of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) using the combination of Headrick, Fehr, Hellstrom, and
Snyder given that the additional reference to Tabor is deemed cumulative to the
original combination.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Combination:
Appellants argue the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection using the combination of
Headrick, Fehr, Hellstrom, and Snyder is improper because “the modifications
required to fit the seal of Fehr onto the end cap assembly of Headrick would render
the seal of Fehr unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, which is explicitly
prohibited under [The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP)]
§ 2143.01” (Appeal Br. 10, 11). However, Appellants seem to confuse what
reference is being modified because their focus is on Fehr as the one being
modified when in fact the proposed change is to Headrick.2 MPEP § 2143.01
2 Appellants further confuse the issue by arguing that “combining Fehr with
Headrick would prevent the end cap of Fehr from engaging the sill and therefore
no seal could be realized” (Appeal Br. 11). But, Fehr does not use end caps, as
Appellants correctly assert on previous page 10 of the Appeal Brief, because rather
than using end caps, “Fehr provides a form fit, mitered seal joined together by
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013