Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066
25-30, column 3, lines 11-22, and column 4, lines 30-32 and 39-44
(answer, pages 6-7).
Cheney’s column 1, lines 25-30 and column 3, lines 11-22
disclose that it is important to reduce hydrocarbon emissions
from fuel and vapor return lines by making the lines impervious
to permeation of hydrocarbons. Column 4, lines 30-32 states that
“in a [sic] application such as fuel lines and vapor recovery
systems, outer diameters up to about 2 inches are preferred.”
Column 4, lines 39-44 discloses that wall thicknesses between
about 0.8 and about 1 mm exhibit better durability, stability and
resistance to hydrocarbon permeation than conventional polymeric
fuel and vapor tubes.
Thus, none of the portions of Cheney relied upon by the
examiner pertains to limiting retention of trace hydrocarbons.
The examiner’s reason for combining Issenmann and Cheney,
therefore, is improper. Moreover, the examiner has not
established that the reduced permeation disclosed by Cheney would
have been desired in Issenmann’s lines by one of ordinary skill
in the art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007