Ex Parte Wentworth et al - Page 4

           Appeal 2007-2378                                                                         
           Application 10/837,098                                                                   

        1        claim 1 on appeal.  Thus, Brewis does not anticipate claim 1 or its dependent      
        2        claims.                                                                            
        3                                                                                           
        4  The Appellants do not point out, and we do not find, any disclosure by Brewis that       
        5  the stop prevents the ribs’ main bodies (47) from falling out when they are not          
        6  engaging a pipe.  As for the argument that the stop is far behind the rear ends of the   
        7  jaws in the drawings, the Appellants’ stop flange 122 also is far behind the rear        
        8  ends of the jaws (84; fig. 4).  Brewis’s silence regarding the stop in the portion       
        9  referred to by the Appellants does not indicate that the stop does not limit forward     
       10  travel of the expansion mandrel and prevent outward radial travel of the jaws after      
       11  the ribs have engaged the wall of the pipe.  Brewis’s disclosures that 1) the            
       12  expansion mandrel has a frusto-conical surface complementary to the rear frusto-         
       13  conical surface of the expansion element (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 17-19), 2) the             
       14  expansion element is drawn forwardly urging expansion of the expandable element          
       15  so that the toothed ribs are urged outwardly into the pipe (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 25-27),  
       16  3) the rear of the expansion mandrel has thereon an enlarged stop (56) (Brewis,          
       17  col. 3, ll. 17-19), and 4) the enlarged stop is positioned such that as the expansion    
       18  mandrel is drawn toward the expansion element the only thing the stop can hit is         
       19  the back of the expansion element (fig. 1), indicate that the stop functions to stop     
       20  the movement of the expansion mandrel toward the expandable element and                  
       21  thereby stop further outward radial travel of the expandable element.                    
       22        We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection under          
       23  35 U.S.C. § 102(b).2                                                                     

                                                                                                    
           2 The Appellants correctly argue that claims 14 and 17-20 should have been               
           rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with claim 4 (Reply Br. 5), but the Appellants do         
           not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 14 and     
                                                 4                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013