Appeal No. 2001-0778
Application No. 08/717,995
Appellants indicate on page 4 of their brief that the appealed claims should be
considered in a single group; therefore all of the claims on appeal stand or fall together.
Accordingly, we shall limit our consideration to claim 1 which is illustrative of the subject
matter encompassed by appellants’ claims and which reads as follows:
1. A flowmeter tube for measuring an amount of flow of liquid through an
interior of the tube comprising a metal tube; an inner surface of the tube
having a coating of aluminum applied thereto around the entire inner
surface for providing an interface bonding layer for receiving a
fluoropolymer liner, an inner liner of fluoropolymer bonded to an exposed
surface of the bonding layer to provide a liner for the entire inner surface
of the metal tube; and a pair of facing electrical conductor electrodes
mounted in the fluoropolymer layer and relative to the tube on opposite
sides of the interior of the tube, and terminals connected to the electrical
conductor electrodes for coupling to a circuit to provide a signal indicating
flow through the tube.
The claims on appeal stand rejected for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon the combined disclosures of the following two prior art references:
Gardner et al. (Gardner) EP 116 875 A1 Aug. 29, 1984
Tsai GB 2 277 466 A Nov. 02, 1994
We have carefully evaluated the cited references in light of the positions taken
by the appellants and the examiner. Having done so, we conclude that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness which appellants have failed to
rebut. Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection at issue essentially for the reasons
stated in the examiner’s answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007