Appeal No. 97-3345
Application 08/332,936
On the other hand, we are of the opinion, as regards
the content of claim 34, that the applied patents to St. Onge
(protective plate 54 for pushing) and Sweeney (flanged plug 32
for pushing and technique shown in Fig. 6) would not have been
suggestive of a male push ring configured to “pass inside the
female connector” and engage one end of a second tubular con-
nector, as claimed.
The argument advanced by appellant fails to persuade
us that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We are in basic agreement with the examiner’s
response to the argument presented (answer, pages 6 through
11) and add the additional commentary. The viewpoint (brief,
page 15) that the proposed modification would appear to weaken
the connectors and negatively “effect” [sic, affect] the
operability of the con- nectors if not rendering them entirely
inoperable for their intended purpose, is considered to be
unsupported attorney argument. From our perspective, the
evidence of obviousness is contrary to the view advocated.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007