Appeal No. 2006-1500
Application No. 10/701,325
The appellants’ claim 2 does not require that the first
inductive coupler portion is attached directly to the connector
mechanism. Hence, an inductive coupler portion, as suggested by
More, that is in Tubel’s main bore or lateral branch and is
indirectly connected to Tubel’s connector mechanism meets the
requirements of the appellants’ claim 2. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 2 and claims 3-7 that stand or fall therewith.
Claim 8
Claim 8 requires an electrical cable connecting a first
inductive coupler assembly proximal equipment in a main bore to a
second inductive coupler assembly proximal equipment in a lateral
branch.
The appellants argue that “Tubel fails to teach or suggest
the first and second inductive coupler assemblies, and More fails
to teach or suggest the second inductive coupler assembly
proximal equipment in the lateral branch” (brief, page 9). The
appellants improperly are attacking the references individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981);
In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
Using More’s inductive coupler in Tubel’s lateral branch would
have been fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007