Appeal 2007-1555
Application 09/900,442
have known to use the drain openings P1-P5 of Fehr as a way to drain the tank 27
in Headrick if the side channels 43, 42 in the cap corner keys 39, 39 were sealed
against communication with the tank 27.
Finally, Appellants argue in their Reply Brief of December 11, 2006 that the
snugger strip 31 of Headrick “provides a friction fit against the outside edge of the
threshold cap 29 to wedge the cap securely within the channel 13” whereas the
“seal is provided by the flexible door sweep 57 on the bottom of the door.”
(Reply Br. 5.) We fail to see merit in this argument because as found supra,
Headrick discloses that the snugger strip 31 also functions as gasket, e.g., a seal,
that helps reduce seepage of rainwater and other moisture at the interface between
the threshold cap and the channel wall, e.g., the bottom frame member. (Headrick
col. 4, ll. 52-56) As such, the snugger strip 31 meets the requirement of claims 1
and 47 of a seal being positioned along the frame bottom, notwithstanding the
continued teaching of this feature in Fehr.
Motivation to Combine
Appellants argue the “Examiner cannot establish obviousness by locating
references that describe various aspects of the pending application’s invention
without also providing evidence of the motivating force that would lead one skilled
in the art to do what the inventor has done.” (Appeal Br. 9.) To the extent that
Appellants argue that an explicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching in the art is
required for a showing of obviousness, that argument has been foreclosed by KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In KSR, the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013