Appeal No. 1998-1787 Page 5
Application No. 08/151,257
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a pipe having an
inner wall surface, and ribs disposed on the inner wall
surface forming a multiple thread wherein the ribs have a lead
equal to between 0.8 and 0.9 times the square root of the mean
inside pipe diameter. However, it is our view that these
limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art.
In that regard, while Stevens and Koch do teach a pipe
having an inner wall surface, and ribs disposed on the inner
wall surface forming a multiple thread, Stevens and Koch do
not teach or suggest the ribs having a lead equal to between
0.8 and 0.9 times the square root of the mean inside pipe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007