Appeal No. 97-2782 Page 14 Application No. 08/368,993 Claims 33 and 34 The examiner determined that claims 33 and 34 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the reasons set forth on page 5 of the answer. The appellant argues (brief, p. 16) that [w]hereas Schmitt-Raiser does disclose (at 10 in Figures 2 and 3) plural pipe guides mounted on the same ceiling panel, a feature called for by appellant's claims 33 and 34, it does not otherwise make up for the above-indicated deficiencies in the teachings of Bergh. Appellant's claim 34 additionally requires the same length of flexible hose to snake around through two or more hose guides. Bergh shows only one tubing channel, and in Schmitt-Raiser, distinctly plural pipes 5 received in the two guides 10. The appellant's argument set forth above and on page 3 of the reply brief is unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, the appellant has not contested the examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to modify Bergh's structure with a plurality of guides as suggested by Schmitt-Raiser. Second, as pointed out above with respect to parent claim 26, there are no deficiencies in the teachings of Bergh upon which one can rest patentability of these dependentPage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007