Appeal No. 96-3796
Application 08/195,397
Rejection (2)
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 34, since the additional secondary references, Hickey
'033 and Moseley, do not overcome the deficiencies of Hickey '144 and Weisenbarger noted above as
to parent claim 22.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 35. Assuming arguendo that it would have been
obvious, in view of Hickey '033, to add a reduced-diameter bottom section extension to the bottom of
separator column 17 of Hickey '144, we find nothing in either of the Moseley patents which would have
suggested or motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to make such bottom section extension
"telescopically received" in the bottom section, as required by claim 35. Considering the Moseley '169
patent, for example, the telescopic sections G and G extend upward so that the length of the pipe G1 2
can be adapted to the level of the upper end C of the liquid B in container A (page 2, lines 26 to 51).
The examiner states on page 6 of the answer that Moseley's telescopic tubes "are obviously applicable
for other level adjustability applications," but since the separator columns of both Hickey '144 and '033
are fixed in the tank and the reduced-diameter bottom extension C of Hickey '033 extends
downwardly from the bottom of the separator column, it is not evident how the bottom extension would
be involved in any level adjustability.
Conclusion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007