Appeal No. 1998-3015 Page 5
Application No. 08/790,373
second tubular ends at the inside of the tubular screen." The
two chamber ports of Sakai that open at the inside of his
tubular screen are the ports at the outlet of tube 27a and the
inlet to tube 29b. However, these two ports are open to the
same tubular end of the tubular screen, not first and second
tubular ends of the tubular screen as set forth in claim 6.
Thus, all the imitations of claim 6 are not found in Sakai.
Since all the limitations of claim 6 are not found in
Sakai for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-11
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 8 to
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conley.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007