Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
vertical cylinder" (page 1, lines 98 and 99), that is, pipe
(A)
has a straight centerline immediately below the flange (B).
In order to meet the limitation in question, the art would
have to teach or suggest a tubing section defining a curved
centerline immediately below the seal seat (16) of McEwen. In
other words, the limitation in question precludes a tubing
section defining a straight centerline immediately below the
seal seat. The advantages of appellant's curved tubing
section are described at pages 7 and 8 of appellant's
specification. We can find nothing in the combined teachings
of McEwen and McFarland which would have suggested the
elimination of McFarland's upper straight section of pipe.
Olsson does not cure the foregoing deficiency in the McEwen-
McFarland combination.
Thus, the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 4 through
7, 9 and 10 and the applied prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007