Appeal No. 2005-0531
Application No. 10/120,708
helical purifier tube assembly filled with adsorbent material
disposed within a housing. Accordingly, we fully concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the helical purifier tube assembly
of Visceglia for the purifier assembly of Horner to achieve "the
benefit of providing a greater compactness while permitting a
relatively long length of filter in a confined space, thereby
increasing contact (purifying) time (see Visceglia, col. 1, lines
26-40, col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 5)" (page 4 of Answer,
first paragraph). In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 152 USPQ 618
(CCPA 1967).
Appellants urge a distinction between the claimed purifier
tube assembly and the one disclosed by Horner on the basis that
the presently claimed assembly "is open at its first end (25)"
(page 5 of Brief, first sentence), in contrast to the plugged
first end of Horner's assembly. However, appellants' argument is
not germane to the claimed subject matter inasmuch as appealed
claim 1 fails to recite that the tubular assembly is open at its
first end.
Appellants also contend that, unlike the assembly of Horner,
"[t]here are no perforations in Applicants' helical purifier tube
assembly allowing for fluid communication intermediate first end
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007