Appeal No. 2001-1514 Page 6
Application No. 08/874,805
Second, the limitations of claim 1 that a first set of uninterrupted conduits
comprising continuous lengths of tubing unbroken from a first end to a second end and
being integrally connected at the first end to the first compression sleeve and being
fixedly joined at the second end to the manifold of the controller connection device and
a second set of uninterrupted conduits comprising continuous lengths of tubing
unbroken from a first end to a second end and being integrally connected at the first
end to the second compression sleeve and being fixedly joined at the second end to the
manifold of the controller connection device (i.e., the uninterrupted conduit limitations)
are not met by conduit sets 90 and 92 of Arkans as alleged by the examiner (Paper No,
24, p. 2). As pointed out by the appellant (brief, pp. 5-7) Arkans teaches (column 7, line
57+) that the first and second conduit sets 90 and 92, respectively, also have
connection devices of identical design intermediate their lengths. The connection
device 150 for the first conduit set 90 is shown in Figures 13, 19 and 20. Thus, the first
and second conduit sets 90 and 92 of Arkans are not continuous lengths of tubing
unbroken from a first end integrally connected to a compression sleeve to a second end
fixedly joined to the manifold of the controller connection device. Moreover, in the
rejection of claim 1 before us in this appeal, the examiner has not set forth evidence of
a suggestion, teaching, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified the first and second conduit sets 90 and 92
Arkans to be continuous lengths of tubing unbroken from a first end integrally
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007