Appeal No. 1999-1770
Application 08/750,625
Rejection (3)
The examiner asserts as to this rejection (answer,
page 6):
Korchak discloses an air-supplying means
for supplying compressed air (64). It
would have been an obvious substitution of
functional equivalents to employ the air-
supplying means for supplying compressed
air of Korchak in the invention of
Cunningham et al. and Arnt. Also, it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to employ the air-supplying means
for supplying compressed air of Korchak in
the invention of Cunningham et al. and Arnt
in order to provide means for both evenly
distributing the liquid at high pressure
and purging the tubes when desired with air
to push the undesired matter from the
tubes.
In light of our discussion, supra, concerning rejection (2),
we do not consider Arnt to be persuasive of obviousness. On
the other hand, we conclude that claims 7, 10, 12 and 13 would
have been obvious over Cunningham in view of Korchak. As
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007