Appeal No. 97-2782 Page 14
Application No. 08/368,993
Claims 33 and 34
The examiner determined that claims 33 and 34 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made for the reasons set forth on page 5 of
the answer.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 16) that
[w]hereas Schmitt-Raiser does disclose (at 10 in Figures
2 and 3) plural pipe guides mounted on the same ceiling
panel, a feature called for by appellant's claims 33 and
34, it does not otherwise make up for the above-indicated
deficiencies in the teachings of Bergh.
Appellant's claim 34 additionally requires the same
length of flexible hose to snake around through two or
more hose guides. Bergh shows only one tubing channel,
and in Schmitt-Raiser, distinctly plural pipes 5 received
in the two guides 10.
The appellant's argument set forth above and on page 3 of
the reply brief is unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, the appellant has not contested the examiner's
determination that it would have been obvious to modify
Bergh's structure with a plurality of guides as suggested by
Schmitt-Raiser. Second, as pointed out above with respect to
parent claim 26, there are no deficiencies in the teachings of
Bergh upon which one can rest patentability of these dependent
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007