Appeal No. 1997-4430
Application 08/421,463
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of
appellant’s claims. Our reasoning appears below.
The Anticipation Rejections
This panel of the board determines that neither
independent claim 39, nor independent claim 61, is
anticipated by the Laurent disclosure. The same applies of
course to the claims respectively dependent therefrom.
In particular, we are of the view that the limitations of
claim 39 are not addressed by the tube in the shape of star
(Fig. 1C) taught by Laurent. While clearly a deformed tube,
the star shape tube of Laurent nevertheless fails to exhibit a
flattened and longitudinally folded shape, as does the H and U
shapes of the respective embodiments of Figs. 1B and 1D (see
translation, page 5). Thus, the star shape of Laurent cannot
be fairly said to teach the pipe product of claim 39 that
comprises, inter alia, a pipe in reduced form having a
flattened and longitudinally folded shape, with the bulbous
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007