Appeal 2007-0516
Application 10/438,506
1 Thus the focus of the invention as originally stated was matching
2 threads having different pitches. As established by the Examiner, “pitch”
3 has a recognized meaning in the art. The change to “diameter” significantly
4 alters the meaning.
5 Applicant refers to page 4, line 23 to Page 5, line 2 ; page 6, lines 3-7;
6 and page 6, lines 15-21 of the original written description and argues that
7 these sections “make[] it clear that ‘diameter’ is the dimension of concern.”
8 Amended Appeal Br., p. 8-9. However, we fail to see how those sections
9 suggest that the values 1 ½ and 2 refer to diameter rather than to pitch. Our
10 reading of those sections indicates that they are neutral on the matter. They
11 shed no light one way or the other.
12 Lastly, applicant argues that a feature expressed in terms of inches
13 would not be compatible with the definition of “pitch.” Amended Appeal
14 Br. p. 9-10. Thus, applicant specifically argues:
15 It is almost difficult to imagine the giant proportions of
16 threads having pitches of 1 - 2 inches and, in any event,
17 such monstrous threads could not be incorporated into a
18 tank having a 55 gallon capacity and/or a motor designed
19 to accommodate such a tank.
20 Amended Appeal Br., p. 10.
21 This argument presumes knowledge of the level of skill in the art
22 which is not supported by facts introduced into the record. Applicant has
23 not directed us to the parts of the record or presented other evidence showing
24 that one skilled in the art would understand the “tank” to have a 55 gallon
25 capacity. Our review of the original specification does not reveal any
26 disclosure which indicates the size of the “tank.” Nor has applicant directed
27 us to evidence that establishes what thread pitch would be considered
28 unacceptable by those working in the art. Indeed, applicant has not directed
- 14 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013