Appeal No. 1998-0649 Page 8
Application No. 08/309,323
45 and the open valve seat of working piston 16, we agree with
the examiner that Ruchser anticipates the instant claimed
invention, as set forth in claim 1.
While appellant appears to indicate, at page 4 of the
principal brief, that the claims do not stand or fall together,
appellant presents no separate arguments regarding claims 2
through 4. Therefore, claims 2 through 4 will fall with
independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Turning to the rejection of claims 5 through 12 based on
35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner recognizes that Ruchser discloses
nothing about a gas drying system and turns to appellant’s
specification, page 5, lines 15-24, for a teaching of employing
a gas dryer since, the examiner alleges, appellant “states that
the gas dryer required for the disclosed system may be selected
from any known and available design including the chemical
drying” [answer-page 5]. The examiner then concludes that it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007