Appeal No. 1998-0649 Page 9
Application No. 08/309,323
would have been obvious “to select one of the commonly used air
or gas dryers to remove moisture introduced to the control
device by the outside air or gas if the controlled process has
to use a pressure sensor that must be protected from the
outside contamination” [answer-page 5].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Ruchser in view of so-called
“applicant’s own admission.” The portion of the specification
referred to by the examiner, page 5, lines 15-24, does not
describe prior art. This portion is not in the background
portion of the specification but, rather, it appears under the
heading of “Detailed Description of the Invention.” Moreover,
the mere fact that gas drying devices, per se, were known and
that they “may be designed in any known manner” [specification-
page 5], does not lead, necessarily, to the conclusion that it
would have been obvious to employ such well known devices in
the specific manner claimed by appellant, e.g., “installed in
said connecting device,” as recited by dependent claim 5. Why,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, would the skilled artisan
have found it obvious to install a gas drying system in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007