Appeal 2007-2873
Application 09/800,793
have had a reasonable expectation that the pressing of Williams’ annular
bead into the gasket of the admitted prior art closure in the vicinity of the
parting line flash or mismatch would overcome the potential for leakage
caused by the parting line flash or mismatch. Consequently, the use of
Williams’ annular bead in the admitted prior art closure would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re O’Farrell,
853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.”).
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 3-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
Appellants’ admitted prior art in view of Williams is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
vsh
WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY,
MCNETT & HENRY, LLP
111 MONUMENT CIRCLE, SUITE 3700
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-5137
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013