Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
evidence to support the assertion. At any rate, for the
reasons we have set forth above, we find that 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"
is not taught or suggested by the combined teachings of the
applied prior art. Thus, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 based on McEwen,
McFarland, Olsson and O'Donnell.
Since we have found that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the claimed
subject matter, it is unnecessary for us to consider
appellant's argument regarding the declarations filed under 37
CFR § 132.
To summarize, all rejections are reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007