Appeal No. 96-3298
Application 08/361,284
has taken the position, however, that
appellant has [sic, appellants have] made no
argument as to the benefit to be derived from having
one drum controller, and it is not seen that this is
a patentable distinction. Note that it has been
held that omission of an element and its function in
a combination where the remaining elements perform
the same functions as before involves only routine
skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184
(answer, page 4).
Claim 7 calls for an inlet pipe system comprising a
single drum controller intersecting each of the second
(shorter) inlet pipes. If it is the examiner’s position that
it would have been obvious to replace the valve shaft and
valves 45 of each of Miyano’s first and second series of pipes
with a drum controller like that of Parr, the resulting
manifold clearly would not
correspond to appellants’ claimed subject matter because the
resulting modified Miyano manifold would not comprise a single
drum controller intersecting each of the shorter inlet pipes.
On the other hand, if it is the examiner’s position that it
would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Parr to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007