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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007