Court Opinion

ID: 9453154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:04:41.842058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:32.312984
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring in result).
The factual differences of record between appellant’s invention claimed in claims 8-10, when evaluated in the light of appellant’s specification, and the teachings of the Scholl reference, are such that I do not agree with the majority that the claimed invention, considered as a whole, would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, each of the appealed claims contains the following language:
* * * the adhesive being cured sufficiently so that it will not flow and close the perforations * * *.
I note that claims 8-10 also were rejected by the examiner on the grounds that appellant’s disclosure was insufficient to support the quoted recitation. It appears from the record that appellant and the examiner had tentatively agreed to changes in the terminology of the claims which would have overcome that rejection. Amendments proffered by the appellant which contained the changed terminology were not entered because they raised, in the examiner’s view, “new issues.” A petition to the Commissioner to enter any one of the proffered amendments was denied.
The board sustained the rejection of the claims on that ground, stating:
* * * Inasmuch as appellant does not assert any error in the Examiner’s position and the language in question remains unchanged, the indicated rejection will be sustained.
Appellant raises no issue here as to the legality of rejecting the claims on the ground of insufficient disclosure. I do not agree, on the present record, with the argument in appellant’s brief that this rejection is now a moot question. As the record stands, appellant and the examiner have not reached an agreement concerning the entry of an amendment which is required to avoid this ground of rejection.
Therefore, I would affirm the rejection of claims 8-10 solely for this reason.