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