Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 Leaphart ‘753. (Br. 7). Schaefer’s nitrile rubber is described as having a
2 hardness falling with the scope of claim 32 and identical in scope to
3 claim 33. Schaefer’s nitrile rubber is described as deformable and suitable
4 for use in constructing a piston.
5 Essentially, Leaphart has employed a known prior art deformable
6 rubber nitrile with a known deformable rubber piston cup. Leaphart’s
7 combination of known elements for their known purpose yields the
8 predictable result of forming a deformable rubber piston cup. We affirm the
9 Examiner’s rejection of claims 32 and 33 over the teachings of Leaphart
10 ‘753 and Schaefer. Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396
11 U.S. 57, 61, 163 USPQ 673, 674 (1969) (combination of old elements that
12 added nothing to the nature and quality of the product was obvious).
13
14
15 v) Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
16 being unpatentable over Ruo and Phillips, U.S. Patent
17 6,719,134 (“Phillips”).
18
19 We do not reach this rejection because it has not been appealed and
20 the claims remain rejected.
21 CONCLUSION
22 We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32-33 as obvious
23 over the combined teachings of Leaphart ‘753 and Schaefer.
24 We REVERSE the following rejections as Leaphart has demonstrated
25 error in the Examiner’s rejections:
26 i) The rejection of claims 28-30, 34 and 36-39 under 35
27 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Leaphart.
28
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013