Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
Regarding the arguments advanced with respect to claims 4-6, we agree with
Appellant that the requirement of a retaining ring of claim 4, and as required by
claim 7, is not met by the coupling structure of the male member 13 in Smith. This
is because, even in the context of the tail 74 being capable of connecting to a
manifold plate, the tail 74 in Smith does not carry a retaining ring to effect this
function. Thus, the rejection of claims 4-6 cannot be sustained under
35 U.S.C. §102(b).
Since claim 7 also contains the retaining ring limitation of claim 4, we
likewise cannot sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 for the same reason.
New Ground of Rejection:
We reject claims 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Smith.
Although Smith does not disclose using a retaining clip, as required by
claims 4 and 7, for connecting the male member 13 to the receiving member 14, it
does disclose, as found supra, using a retaining clip 24 housed within an annular
groove 34 in the bore 31 of sleeve 21 of the two-part receiving member 14 to hold
and/or limit axial movement of the sleeve 22 relative to the main body 21 of the
two-part receiving member (Smith col. 6, ll. 21-32).
A person with ordinary skill in the art would know to use the retaining ring
and annular groove connection, as taught by elements 24 and 34 in Smith, to
axially hold the male and receiving members 13 and 14 together by modifying the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013