Appeal No. 1998-0432 Page 5
Application No. 08/681,070
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The rejection of claims 1 through 4 is based on the
examiner's ascertainment (answer, p. 3) that "Burd discloses
all of the recited structure with the exception of the threads
being formed on the exterior end."
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 3-5) that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to have modified the exterior end of Burd
to have threads instead of Burd's sleeve to allow for a hose
having interior threads as suggested by the teachings of
Alexander.2
The appellants argue that the prior art as applied does
not arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, the
appellants argue (brief, p. 7) that Burd lacks "a generally
2The specific teachings of Burd and Alexander relied upon
by the examiner are set forth on pages 3-5 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007