Appeal No. 2002-1837
Application 09/315,411
examiner’s additional rationalization (see pages 6 and 7 in the
answer) that the appellants’ swage assembly 52, which is
disclosed as performing the “expanding” step recited in parent
claim 1, could interfere with the sliding sleeve valve 48 is
purely conjectural, and is ostensibly belied by the disclosed
spaced relationship between these two elements (see Figures 12
through 15 and page 6 in the specification).
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s position that the
appellants’ disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill
in the art as of the date of the application, would not have
enabled a person of such skill to make and use the invention
recited in claims 14 and 15 without undue experimentation is not
well founded. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of these claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007