Appeal No. 2000-1111
Application 08/881,969
However, we do not see in the Adams disclosure a pair of radially opposed,
laterally extending flanges 26 or 38 as illustrated in Figure 1 and as claimed in claim 1.
Nor has the Examiner provided any reasoning why such flanges would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skilll in the art. Additionally, there is no discussion in the
rejection regarding the means for securing the outer and inner flanges together. In sum,
the Examiner has failed to put forth sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of
obviousness for claim 1 and we reverse this rejection for claim 1 and the claims which
depend from claim 1, specifically claims 4 - 14.
Turning now to claim 15, we note that it contains limitations of:
- an outer saddle-shaped shell element including a porous semi-cylindrical
screen defining an outer side wall; and
- an inner saddle-shaped shell element connected to the outer shell element and
including a porous, semi-cylindrical screen.
The Examiner has failed to identify any teaching or suggestion in the prior art to
provide such limitations. The conclusory statements found in the Examiner’s Answer
regarding making the saddle from two parts (Page 4, lines 11-12 and 16-18) for “ease of
manufacture,” without more, are insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness.
We therefore reverse this rejection as applied to claim 15.
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 12 are argued separately in the Appellants’ Brief at page 7,
line 19 to page 8, line 18. They contain additional limitations beyond those in the
independent claims. As we have reversed the rejection of independent claim 1 above,
further discussion of these claims is unnecessary.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007