Appeal 2007-2030
Application 10/482,842
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-6, 11-13, and 15-17 as unpatentable over Erkkila in
view of Schlueter; and (2) claims 9-10 and 18-21 as unpatentable over Erkkila in
view of Hings. The dispositive issue is whether the asserted references are
properly combined and whether, when combined, they yield the claimed invention.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification discloses an example, wherein the “first glue” and
“second glue” are different types of glue:
For achieving a good joint quality, it has proved to be
particularly important that the one glue strand consists of
a glue of such properties that it gives an immediate fixing
after closure of the joint in that the sleeves 1 and 2 are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013