Appeal No. 1996-1561 Page 7
Application No. 08/230,075
rejection. Furthermore, in view of the appellant’s election to
group claims 1-7 together, the rejection of claims 2-7 also is2
sustained.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to
claim 8. This independent claim additionally requires the
presence of “tool receiving means formed in said restriction
member at one end to permit inserting the restriction member in
said thermoplastic tube at a tube end” (emphasis added).
Neither of the two references applied against claim 8 shows a
tool receiving means of any kind, much less one that is formed
“in” one end of the restriction member, and we are not
persuaded otherwise by the examiner’s argument.
A prima facie case of obviousness therefore has not been
established with regard to the subject matter of claim 8, and
we will not sustain the rejection.
We have carefully considered the arguments the appellant
has directed to the rejection of claim 1. However, they have
not persuaded us that the examiner’s position with regard to
claim 1 was in error. The fact that Preston discloses a
2 See Brief, page 3, considering that the rejection of
claim 8 has been separately argued in the Reply Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007