Ex Parte Wentworth et al - Page 7

           Appeal 2007-2378                                                                         
           Application 10/837,098                                                                   

        1        Assuming for the sake of argument that one skilled in the art had need for a       
        2        better pipe towing device than the rudimentary one Carter describes, and           
        3        consistent with the teachings of Brewis et al. in connection with back             
        4        reamers, one skilled in the art would connect the pipe towing head of Brewis       
        5        et al[.] to the back of Carter’s mole and use it in place of the sleeve and        
        6        screws Carter provides for that purpose.  However, such a combination              
        7        would not achieve either the method or apparatus of the rejected claims,           
        8        since there would be no pipe bursting projection on the towing head.  There        
        9        is no suggestion present in either of the references that Carter’s mole be         
       10        omitted in its entirety and a blade be provided on the front of what had been      
       11        used previously only as a pipe towing head.  Only appellants recognized this       
       12        possibility.                                                                       
       13                                                                                           
       14  The Appellants’ argument does not follow from the references because there is no         
       15  disclosure of connecting a towing head behind a pipe bursting head.  Carter’s            
       16  disclosure of a towing head/pipe bursting projection combination would have led          
       17  one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to place a   
       18  pipe bursting projection on Brewis’s towing head so that, like Carter’s towing/pipe      
       19  bursting head, Brewis’s towing head would also perform the function of pipe              
       20  bursting.                                                                                
       21                              Claims 4, 5, 15 and 16                                       
       22        The Appellants argue (Reply Br. 8):                                                
       23        Carter’s moles 40, 220 terminate in a towing eyelet 228, with the blades           
       24        projecting from the sides, not the front surface, of the mole.  Thus, even if      
       25        there were reason to, moving Carter’s blades to the pipe towing head of            
       26        Brewis et al. would still not achieve the claimed combination.  There is no        
       27        “pipe bursting projection on its frontwardly facing outer surface” in the mole     
       28        of Carter et al.                                                                   
       29                                                                                           
       30  The Appellants’ pipe bursting head also terminates in a towing eyelet (14, fig. 1).      
       31  A pipe bursting projection on Brewis’s towing head’s tubular body (14) would be          


                                                 7                                                  


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013