Appeal 2006-3125
Application 10/398,045
REMAND
The Examiner and the Appellant have interpreted the Appellant’s
claims as including the first and second tubes. However, those tubes are not
positively recited in the claims. Claim 1, for example, recites that the
connecting elements are “to be contacted” by the tubes. The actual contact
is not required. Claim 1 also recites that “where the first connection element
is contacted by the first tube” and “where the second connection element is
contacted by the second tube” the inner diameters of the tubes are slightly
smaller than the outer diameters of the connection elements. The contact,
however, is not positively recited. The claim appears to require only that
where the connection elements are to be contacted by tubes, the connection
elements and tubes will have the recited relative diameters. Similar
comments apply to the other claims.
We remand the application for the Examiner and the Appellant to
address on the record whether the claimed invention requires the referenced
tubes. If not, the Examiner should determine whether the prior art discloses,
or would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a tube
connection system having the recited first and second connection elements.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013