Appeal No. 96-3298
Application 08/361,284
replace the valve shaft and valves 45 of both of Miyano’s
first and second series of pipes with a single drum controller
like that of Parr, we simply do not agree that the combined
teachings of the applied references suggest such a
modification. As aptly pointed out by appellants, Miyano’s
design virtually excludes the possibility of providing this
sort of construction absent a major reconstruction which would
involve eliminating one of the common valve shafts and
rerouting the paths of the pipes to allow each of the shorter
inlet pipes to be under the control of a single controller.
How this is to be accomplished in the absence of appellants’
teachings is not clear.
As for the examiner’s reliance on In re Karlson, 311 F.2d
581, 584, 136 USPQ 184, 186 (CCPA 1963) for the principle that
omission of an element and its function involves only routine
skill in the art, we observe that the court has also
recognized
that this is not a mechanical rule, and that the language in
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007