Appeal No. 97-1439 Page 14
Application No. 08/417,981
the bottom post while permitting without resisting upward lifting
of the top post, (4) orienting the posts such that gravity keeps
the stop ring against the keeper, and (5) lifting the top post to
move the stop ring out of the annular space to permit relocation
of the stop ring on the top post.
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 5-6) that Namur
discloses the invention except for the method of adjusting and
that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made . . . to use this
method [the claimed method] to adjust the configuration of
Namur in view of Garringer. As concerns the limitation
pertaining to upward lifting of the top post without
resistance, it is the position of the examiner that the
configuration of Namur also permits upward lifting of the
top post without resistance due to the unobstructive
geometry between the ring upon which the top post and the
keeper 13 as shown in figure 4.
We do not agree. For the reasons set forth by the
appellants (brief, p. 7), it is our opinion that the geometry
between Namur's locking ring 7 and his keeper ring 13 as shown in
Figure 4 is such that upward lifting of the tube (i.e., top post)
3 would be resisted by the firm watertight contact therebetween.
Furthermore, we do not agree with the examiner's comments
(answer, p. 10) that the geometry between the appellants' keeper
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007