Appeal No. 2005-0531
Application No. 10/120,708
Appellants submit at page 3 of the Brief that "[c]laims 1-3
and 9-11 stand and fall together." Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Horner, like appellants, discloses a fluid
storage and purification system comprising a cylindrical vessel
and a purifier tube assembly disposed therein for the purpose of
removing impurities exiting the vessel. In particular,
appellants state that "[i]t is admitted that Horner, et al does
disclose a gas delivery system incorporating in [sic, an]
internal purifier" (page 4 of Brief, second paragraph). As
appreciated by the examiner, the internal purifier of Horner is
not a helical assembly, as presently claimed. However, as
pointed out by the examiner, Visceglia expressly discloses a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007