Appeal No. 2005-2649
Application No. 09/690,377
Sakurada disclose, teach or suggest the method as set forth in claim 9 on appeal.
Moreover, we fail to find any reasonable basis in the applied patents for attempting to
modify the method of Coplan, based on Sakurada, in a manner that would render the
claimed method obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In the final analysis, we agree with appellants that the examiner’s attempted
combination of the different forms of dispensers and methods of Coplan and Sakurada
represents an improper exercise in hindsight reconstruction of the claimed method
based on appellants’ own teachings. For that reason, and those otherwise expressed
above, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6 adds to claim 9 the requirement that the plurality of plastic tubes be fused by
heating under pressure “after sandwiching the portion to be fused between a pair of
pieces made of a plastic identical to that of the plastic tubes.” This aspect of the
method is illustrated in Figure 4 of the application. According to the examiner (answer,
page 5), Coplan discloses such a method step in Figures 12 and 13, and at column 8,
lines 53-58. Suffice to say that the examiner has again totally mischaracterized the
disclosure of Coplan. Nothing in Coplan teaches or suggests a method step wherein a
plurality of tubes are sandwiched between a pair of pieces made of a plastic identical to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007