Appeal No. 1998-0277
Application No. 08/478,009
However, we cannot support the rationale applied for the reasons
explained below.
Considering the art relied upon by the examiner in the
rationale of the rejection, it is quite clear that those
practicing this art, when appellants' invention was made,
fabricated linear double containment pipes using planar heaters
(Ziu '260). As to angled pipe single pipe configurations, Windle
reflects the knowledge in the art of using non-planar heaters.
The examiner cites the Ziu '088 and Butts teachings as a showing
that branched double containment pipes are known per se.
However, these documents reveal more. With respect to angled or
branched double containment pipes, Ziu '088 instructs those
versed in the art of a method that encompasses welding laterally
split (Fig. 6) or longitudinally split (Fig. 7) containment
(secondary) pipes while the teaching of Butts (Fig. 8) is meager
in that only the use of fusion rings is focused upon for welding
additional pipe sections to a standard wye fitting for a carrier
pipe.
All in all, we find ourselves in accord with appellants'
view that only impermissible hindsight would have enabled one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007