Ex Parte Sogard et al - Page 8


                   Appeal No.  2007-0917                                                                Page 8                    
                   Application No.  10/012,919                                                                                    
                          For their part, appellants point out the teachings of each reference, limiting                          
                   their interpretation of Ishiwari to the preferred embodiment of extruding a                                    
                   modified PTFE tubular member.  Brief, pages 12-13.  Based on this analysis,                                    
                   appellants conclude that “the hypothetical combination of Trescony, Golds, and                                 
                   EP ‘584 [(Ishiwari)] fails to provide the claimed invention.”  Brief, page 13.  We                             
                   disagree.                                                                                                      
                          Claim 23 does not require the assembly of tubular members as taught by                                  
                   Trescony and Golds.  For the reasons discussed above, we find that claim 23                                    
                   would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the                            
                   time the invention was made over Ishiwari.  Accordingly, we affirm the rejection                               
                   of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of                                
                   Trescony, Golds, and Ishiwari.  Claims 25-40 fall together with claim 23.                                      

























Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013