Appeal No. 1999-2848 Page 6
Application No. 08/833,508
second spoke pipe set” as is required by claim 40. Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection as to claim 40.
Claim 41 recites “at least one spoke pipe valve fitted to
a downwardly directed spoke pipe.” Dunlap does not disclose a
valve on any of the spoke pipes 44. As such, we will not
sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 41.
In the examiner’s view, the container 8 of Dunlap forms
the “outer concentric pipe section” and elements 10 and 12 are
the first and second fittings as recited in claim 42.
However, elements 10 and 12 do not secure the cylinder 8 to a
roller so that the annular passageway of cylinder 8 is in
communication with the hollow interior of the roller (See Fig.
1). As such, we will not sustain the rejection as to claim
42.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 35-38 is sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 40-42 is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007