Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
interconnection). Thus, while Ranford teaches that the lugs
function to allow for rotational adjustment about the axis of the
tube extension 13, as well as upwardly and downwardly of
adjustment of the tube extension, there is absolutely nothing to
suggest that these lugs function as pivot pins as asserted by the
examiner. As the examiner apparently recognizes, there is
nothing in either Bales or Kalt which would overcome this
deficiency. This being the case, we will not sustain 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 in view of Bales and
Kalt.
Considering next the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ranford in view of
Bales and Kalt, both of these claims require that the neck
engaging portion be “molded about” the interconnection. In the
primary reference to Ranford, however, the neck engaging portion
30 is apparently molded at the same time as the interconnection
29 so as to form a homogeneous, one-piece construction and the
examiner has not provided any persuasive line of reasoning as to
why one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious
to modify Ranford such that the neck engaging portion 30 is
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007