Appeal No. 95-2960
Application 08/009,381
488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellants argue that Isono does not use a single,
unitary hollow conductive metal tube but, instead, uses a
tubular member having elements which connect to each other
(brief, page 6). Appellants’ claim 8 does not require use of
a one piece tube. Although Isono’s tube has mating members,
an end of each member is connected to a rubber tube segment,
which is all that appellants’ claim 8 requires.
Appellants argue that Isono does not disclose heating
connected tubing using induction (brief, page 6). Motivation
to do so would have been provided to one of ordinary skill in
the art by Popovich and Smith as discussed above.
For the above reasons, the evidence and argument of
record, on balance, leads us to conclude that the invention
6-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007