Appeal No. 2000-1332
Application No. 08/793,242
fixed to the header pipes "immediately" after the end
plugs and partitions are positioned and immobilized as
urged by the examiner. Thus, Yamaguchi does not provide
any factual support for the examiner's determination that
it meets the claim 10 limitation in question. Moreover,
given the fundamental disparities between the header
constructions disclosed by Yamaguchi and Cribari, there
is nothing in the combined teachings of these two
references which would have suggested a method meeting
the limitation in question.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10, or of claims 2
through 5, 7 and 13 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Cribari.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8, which depends from claim
10, as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of
Cribari and Sutou. Notwithstanding the examiner's
recently advanced argument to the contrary (see n.1,
supra), the header formation process disclosed by Sutou
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007