Appeal No. 96-0681
Application 08/041,715
them from plastic, and would increase the efficiency of
the desiccant by allowing more gas to pass through the
container per unit time.
Also, on page 7 of the answer:
Clearly the Russell et al reference is being utilized
to teach the well[-]known advantages of constructing
the inventive apparatus from molded plastic
(advantage : economics), constructing the inventive
apparatus with apertures in both ends (advantage :
greatly gas passage through the container per unit
time), and constructing the inventive apparatus with
the apertures terminating in a substantially planar
inner surface of the end caps (advantage : lessened
abrading of the desiccant).
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
made in the appellants’ brief and the examiner’s answer, we
conclude that the rejection was not well taken.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious,
in view of Russell, to make the body 11 and cap 12 of the
Kleinhans container 10 out of molded plastic, this being simply
the obvious use of a well-known material. As for the cap 12 of
Kleinhans, it appears to be made of metal, with the apertures
(“ports”) 22 being punched through it. If cap 12 of Kleinhans
were made of molded plastic rather than metal, the apertures 22
would be included as part of the molding process and, not being
punched like the Kleinhans apertures, would not have inner ends
protruding beyond the inner surface of the cap, but rather would
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007