Appeal No. 1998-0649 Page 10
Application No. 08/309,323
connecting device, i.e., somewhere within conduit 66, open
valve seat 45 and the open valve seat of working piston 16, of
Ruchser without some specific suggestion to do so?
While it might very well have been obvious to install a
gas drying device, and/or one which operates on a chemical
principle, in the connecting device of Ruchser, we simply have
no evidence before us, other than appellant’s own disclosure,
that would suggest doing so. Accordingly, we must reverse the
rejection of claims 5 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on
the evidence before us.
The rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
is sustained. The rejection of claims 5 through 12 under 35
U.S.C. 103 is reversed. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision
is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007