Appeal No. 96-1901
Application 07/925,790
We arrive at this conclusion for several reasons. First of all, there simply is no teaching in
Haines which would, in our view, have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Haines discs
could be used with flexible pipe. Second, in accordance with the Haines system, the flexible pipe
would be clamped between the discs with pressure applied by the springs, and therefore could be
crushed, resulting in the flow of fluids therethrough being curtailed or greatly impeded, thus making it
dysfunctional for the Parola situation. Third, substitution of the discs for the chambered drum of Parola
would destroy the Parola invention. All of these factors would have operated as disincentives to the
artisan to make the proposed modification.
We therefore are of the opinion that the combined teachings of Parola and Haines fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in independent
claim 2, and we will not sustain the rejection.
For the same reasons, we also will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 3, 9 and 10,
all of which recite the discs, and all of which also stand rejected on the basis of Parola and Haines. In
addition to the disc limitation, method claims 9 and 10 require the step of controlling the engagement of
the well pipe with the discs by “raising and lowering the well pipe on the side of the apparatus remote
from the well,” which clearly not only is not taught by either of the applied references, but would be
impossible to perform in either.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007