Appeal No. 97-4248
Application 08/567,617
(2) Claims 9 and 10, unpatentable over McConnell in view of Frye,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The McConnell patent discloses a tubular coupling
similar to appellants’, but having two O-rings 46, 48. The
examiner takes the position that McConnell anticipates claim 1
because, although there is no express disclosure in McConnell of
any transition portions, pivot points or contact points, the
region at the end 25 of first (inner) tube 12 and fitting 14
constitutes the claimed second contact point, the region near
the end of second (outer) tube 28 (i.e., near the end of ramp
portion 38) is a transition portion of tube 28 and the claimed
first contact point, and, as shown in the drawing, O-ring 46 is
at the midpoint of the distance between these two contact points.
Appellants do not dispute the location of the second contact
point, but argue that in McConnell, the first contact point and
transition region are at the inner end of the second tube’s
outwardly flared portion 40 (i.e., just to the right of reference
numeral 40 as shown in Fig. 3), so that the midpoint of the
distance between this first contact point and the second contact
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007