Appeal No. 99-0094
Application 08/482,589
pressure, slipping the tube over a length of ferrous
pipe, compressing it until the metal of the tube is
in intimate contact throughout the length of the
tube with the ferrous pipe and allowing it to shrink
fit in place by cooling [column 1, lines 32 through
39].
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the answer),
Scherer’s method of affixing a sacrificial tube to a ferrous
pipe fails to meet at least one of the limitations in claim 1.
As explained above, the same is true of Zenick’s method of
producing a hypodermic needle assembly. Suffice it to say
that the only suggestion for combining these clearly disparate
methods so as to arrive at the method recited in claim 1 stems
from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellants’ own teachings. The failings of the references in
this regard are highlighted by the inconsistent positions
taken by the examiner (see pages 4, 6 and 7 in the answer) as
to how they might be so combined.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 through 5 and 10
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Scherer in
view of Zenick.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007