Appeal No. 98-0028
Application No. 08/455,912
(column 2, lines 64 and 65), the purpose of this is not to
arrest insertion, but to seal the gap between the collar and
the bore (column 1, lines 65 and 66). This leads us to the
conclusion that, even if we consider McGugan, the added
reference, as disclosing a stop to arrest insertion, as opined
by the examiner, there would have been no suggestion to modify
Puttonen in the manner proposed by the examiner, that is,
place a stop on the outer surface to arrest insertion of the
coupling. To do so would appear to adversely impact upon the
sealing function performed by Puttonen’s uppermost
compressible ring, thus acting as a disincentive for such a
change.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claims 17-
20.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
presented by the appellant. However, as to the rejection that
we have sustained, they have not convinced us that the
decision of the examiner is in error. Our position with
respect to these arguments should be apparent from the
explanations provided above.
SUMMARY
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007