Appeal No. 1998-0432 Page 8
Application No. 08/681,070
In applying this meaning to the phrase "a generally
cylindrical inner body section with a smooth bore
therethrough," it is clear to us that Burd does not teach or
suggest a generally cylindrical inner body section with a
smooth bore therethrough. In that regard, we note that the
bore through connector 10, as shown in Figure 2, is not
generally cylindrical and free from irregularities, roughness,
or projections from one end thereof to the opposite end
thereof due to the presence of bevel portion 18, the taper of
the inner surface of sleeve 62 (see column 4, lines 17-19),
and the unnumbered vertical wall extending between bevel
portion 18 and large diameter portion 14.
Moreover, we agree with the appellants arguments (brief,
pp. 18-20) that the "integral threads" as recited in the
claims under appeal are not suggested by the applied prior
art. In that regard, while Alexander does teach grooves on
the outer surface of portion 4 to assist in securing a tube 7,
which is in the process of solidifying, to be secured to the
portion 4, Alexander does not teach or suggest integral
threads of such a shape and pitch to create the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007