Appeal No. 2000-1280
Application No. 09/110,785
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the § 103 rejection will be sustained
since "The complete disclosure of an invention in the prior
art is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness." In re Avery,
518 F.2d 1228, 1234, 186 USPQ 161, 166 (CCPA 1975). The
rejection of dependent claims 2 to 9 and 11 to 20 will
likewise be affirmed, inasmuch as appellants have grouped them
with their respective parent claims (brief, page 4).
Although we will sustain the § 103 rejection, we will
designate our action as a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b), since the basis of our conclusion of
unpatentability differs from that of the examiner. Cf. In re
Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979).
Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claim 9 is additionally
rejected for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Reading claim 9 on appellants' disclosure, it
requires the end 12a of the second tube (furnace tube 12) to
be welded to the stress collar 118 and the end portion of the
first tube 16. While this is consistent with appellants'
disclosure at page 4, lines 22 and 23, and page 8, lines 1 to
4, that in some instances a fitting may not be used, it is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007