Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2
and 3 as being unpatentable over Ranford in view of Bales and
claims 11-15 and 19-22 as being unpatentable over Ranford in8
view of Bales and Kalt, each of these claims expressly require a
pair of opposed pivot pins. It is apparently the examiner’s
position that the lugs 46 of Ranford may be considered to be
pivot pins and in support of this position the examiner makes
reference in Ranford to the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4
(see supplemental answer, pages 7 and 8). However, we find
nothing in Ranford which supports the examiner’s position. In
Ranford the lugs 46 are disposed in circumferential grooves 44
that are located between ribs 43 in such a manner that the lugs
hold tube extension 13 in axial position by interacting with the
adjacent ribs (see column 3, lines 44-49). In the paragraph
bridging columns 3 and 4 it is further stated that the engagement
of the lugs in the grooves permits the tube extension 13 to
rotate with respect to the collar or neck flange and that the
tube extension may further be moved upwardly and downwardly in
the elongated opening 35 in the sleeve portion 29 (i.e., the
8In line 3 of claim 11 “the pair of opposed pivot pins”
should apparently be --a pair of opposed pivot pins-- inasmuch as
there is no antecedent basis for “the pair. . . .”
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007