Appeal No. 2005-0531
Application No. 10/120,708
(25) and second end (21)" (id.). Again, however, appellants'
argument is not commensurate in scope with the appealed claims
since, as noted by the examiner, the appealed claims are
sufficiently broad to embrace a purifier tube assembly having
perforations therein.
We are also not persuaded by appellants' argument that a
combination of Horner and Visceglia necessarily results in a
helical purifier tube assembly being perforated and having a plug
at its first end. Manifestly, it would have been at least as
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to completely
substitute the helical purifier of Visceglia, without
perforations and a plug, for the purifier assembly of Horner.
Although appellants conclude that "one cannot replace the
purifier tube employed in the Horner, et al shipping container
for gas storage and distribution with the coil filter of
Visceglia, et al and achieve Applicants' claimed fluid storage
and purification unit as defined by Claims 1-3 and 9-11" (page 7
of Brief), appellants have advanced no rationale in support of
their conclusion.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007