Appeal 2007-2463
Application 10/403,555
arrangement, the Examiner asserts, disposes the “securing ring” 21
(Kojima’s end plate) radially over the edge of the “bandage” 4 so as to
substantially extend flush therewith (Answer 3-4).
Appellant argues that Kojima’s end plate 21 does not substantially
extend flush with the bandage as claimed. Appellant emphasizes that the
outer diameter of the end plate 21 is greater than that of the pipe to allow the
projecting part to bend around the protrusion. According to Appellant, the
claimed flush-mounted configuration is simply not attained with Kojima’s
structure (Br. 4; emphasis added).
The Examiner contends that since claim 1 calls for the securing ring to
substantially extend flush with the bandage, the qualifier “substantially”
does not preclude the structure of Kojima (Answer 7). The Examiner also
asserts that Kojima fully meets a “flush” mounting as claimed in view of the
broad definition of the term.2 Defining “flush” as “directly abutting or
immediately adjacent,” according to the Examiner, is proper in view of
Figure 1a of the present application which shows the securing ring 6
extending in a “slightly greater” radial direction than the bandage 5 (Answer
7).
Appellant notes that merely because the securing rings abuts or is
disposed immediately adjacent the bandage is immaterial as to the aligned or
levelled relationship between the securing ring and the bandage (Reply Br.
2-3; emphasis added). Appellant also refers to a dictionary which,
according to Appellant, also reveals that the term “flush” is synonymous
with “level.” Id.
2 The Examiner cites a dictionary definition of “flush” as “directly abutting
or immediately adjacent” (Answer 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013