Appeal No. 99-0612 Page 8
Application No. 08/772,958
examiner's conclusion that a hose guide having openings in the
surface thereof would be cheaper or easier to clean to be
speculative.
While a hose guide having openings in the arcuate collar
member thereof would be lighter than the hose guide of Pauli
having no such openings, we can find no teaching or suggestion
as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to reduce the weight of the hose guide of Pauli,
especially in view of the other consequences noted above.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Moreover, we note that claim 14, like independent claims
1 and 8 discussed supra, recites a "braze bracket." We do not
find that the hose guide of Pauli is a "braze bracket" of the
type described by the appellants.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the standing rejection of
independent claim 14, or of claims 15 and 16 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007