Appeal No. 1998-3016
Application No. 08/568,344
member to be part of the claimed invention, in
combination with the rubber coated flange. As
pointed out in the Appeal Brief, that claimed
structure of the base member distinguishes over
Thurman and Briggs [reply brief, pages 2-3].
In our view the examiner has not provided evidence
supporting his contention that the base member structure is
notoriously well known in the art. It is apparent to us that
the examiner is dismissing the structural features of
appellants' claims 10 and 11 because of appellants' assertion
that the coating is the inventive aspect. Our review of
appellants' prior art disclosure reveals nothing therein which
describes the above quoted structural features recited in
appellants' claims 10 and 11 as being part of the prior art.
Specifically, we do not find evidence that the nebulous
"general state of the art" relied upon by the examiner teaches
or suggests a base member with two passages in communication
with a coalescer element as recited in claims 10 and 11.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Briggs taken in view of the general state of the art is
reversed. It also follows that the examiner's rejection of
claims 12, 13 and 15, which are dependent on claim 11, as
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007