Appeal 2007-2378
Application 10/837,098
1 (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 1-14). The expandable member comprises a cylindrical tube
2 having on its outer surface toothed ribs (46) with cutting profiles (Brewis, col. 3, ll.
3 7-8). Each rib has a main body (47) with a front end having a projecting sawtooth
4 section (47’) (which corresponds to the Appellants’ pipe gripping tooth) (Brewis,
5 col. 3, ll. 8-10). The rear of the expandable member has a frusto-conical bore that
6 is complementary to a frusto-conical expansion mandrel (45) (which corresponds
7 to the Appellants’ tapered expander) and has at its rear an enlarged stop (56)
8 (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 17-20). The expansion mandrel has a threaded bore engaged by
9 the thread of threaded bolt 38 (which corresponds to the Appellants’ means for
10 pulling the expander forward relative to the jaws) (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 19-20).
11 “Rotation of the shaft 38, by means of the towing eye 42, causes the mandrel 45 to
12 be drawn forwardly, urging expansion of the expandable member 44, so that the
13 toothed ribs 46 are urged outwardly into the pipe [12]. The pipe is sandwiched
14 between the expandable member 44 and the [tubular body’s rearwardly extending]
15 skirt 18” (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 24-27).
16 The Appellants argue (Reply Br. 4-5):1
17 Given the position of stop 56 far behind the rear ends of the jaws 47 in
18 the drawing, it would not contact the back of jaws (main bodies) 47 in use,
19 and acts as a stop only in the sense of preventing the jaws 47 from falling
20 out when the device is not engaging a pipe. This interpretation makes sense
21 especially in light of col. 3, lines 31-52 of the patent, wherein Brewis
22 discusses the possibility of pipe thinning and fracture, and teaches various
23 measures for dealing with it, such as providing teeth of progressively
24 different lengths (Brewis Fig. 5). If stop 56 were configured for such a
25 purpose, Brewis surely would have mentioned it at that point in the
26 specification. It cannot be reasonably concluded, taking the teachings of the
27 reference as a whole, the [sic, that] Brewis et al. describes the stop defined in
1 The rejections are new rejections set forth for the first time in the Examiner’s
Answer. Hence, we do not address the Appeal Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013