Appeal No. 1999-2127
Application No. 08/754,371
the language of claim 1, from which claims 3-6 depend,
literally is not met by Vezie. This situation is not altered,
in our view, by considering the teachings of Vezie in the
light of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, alone or with the other two references, for we fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate seven
of the eight large diameter second pass pipes disclosed by
Vezie. These two rejections thus fail at the outset, for the
references do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claims 4-6, and we will
not sustain them.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by
Vezie is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 as being unpatentable
over Vezie in view of Hartmann is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Vezie
in view of Hartmann and Newman is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007