Appeal No. 97-1439 Page 15
Application No. 08/417,981
and stop ring is similar to the geometry between Namur's locking
ring 7 and keeper ring 13. In that regard, the appellants'
keeper 40 and stop ring 30 (see Figure 3) have interengaging
tapered surfaces which permit the upward lifting of the stop ring
30 without resistance while Namur's locking ring 7 and keeper
ring 13 (see Figure 4) have interengaging cylindrical surfaces
which permit the upward lifting of the locking ring 30 with
resistance due to the firm watertight contact therebetween.
Accordingly, the claimed limitation that the attached stop ring
is fitted into the annular space so that the keeper prevents
further downward movement of the top post relative to the bottom
post while permitting without resisting upward lifting of the top
post is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art. Thus,
the examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, we cannot sustain the5
examiner's rejection of appealed independent claim 8, or claims 9
and 10 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 15
5Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In
re Fine, supra.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007