Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
10, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through
7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
McEwen in view of McFarland and Olsson, the examiner describes
Figure 1 of McFarland as teaching a discharge tube (A)
including a curved tubing section and contends that "it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
associate a curve with the McEwen tubing section in order to
facilitate installation" (answer, page 6).
We share appellant's view that even if McEwen and
McFarland were combined in the manner proposed, the resulting
device still would fall short of meeting the limitation in
claims 1 and 10 of a curved tubing section defining a "curved
centerline immediately below and continuously from said first
substantially circular opening." As correctly pointed out by
the appellant (brief, page 9), Figure 1 of McFarland shows the
upper end of pipe (A) extending downwardly from the flange (B)
in a direction
perpendicular to the flange. In fact, McFarland describes the
end of the pipe (A) connected to the flange (B) as a "short
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007