Appeal 2007-2378
Application 10/837,098
1 making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
2 creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Brewis
3 then discloses three safety features (Brewis, col. 3, ll. 31-51). The disclosure that
4 they are safety features would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that
5 the device is intended to work properly without them and that they are added for
6 safety. Those safety features are 1) gaps (52) in the ribs that reduce the risk that
7 the biting of the ribs into the pipe will weaken the pipe, 2) a flare at the rear of the
8 tubular body’s skirt (18) that allows expansion of the pipe to reduce the tendency
9 of the ribs at the rear portion of the expandable element from pushing relatively
10 deeply into the pipe, and 3) radiused corners at the rear end of the expandable
11 member that reduces stress on the pipe and thereby reduces the risk of pipe
12 necking. See id. As indicated by the functions of the safety features, they do not
13 take away the need for the enlarged stop to stop the forward movement of the
14 expansion mandrel before it causes the expandable element’s toothed to dig too
15 deeply into the pipe.
16 Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection under
17 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Brewis.
18 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
19 over Brewis in view of Carter
20
21 Claims 7 and 9-13
22 Carter discloses a pipe parting and expanding device (pipe mole 40)
23 comprising 1) pipe parting fins or blades (56), and 2) a sleeve (156) and
24 screws (160) for engaging a replacement pipe pulled behind the pipe parting and
25 expanding device (Carter, col. 3, ll. 48-63; col. 4, l. 60 – col. 5, l. 2).
26 The Appellants argue (Reply Br. 7-8):
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013