Appeal No. 2000-0531
Application No. 08/782,151
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The examiner states on page 5 of the answer that the appellant's admitted prior art
method on page 2 of the specification and depicted in Figure 2 includes the steps of placing a
reinforced fire hose over a coupling such that a gap is created between the outer surface of the
coupling and the inner surface of the hose and then clamping the hose to the coupling and the
appellant does not challenge this statement. Additionally, the examiner states on page 6 of the
answer that the fire hose of the appellant's admitted prior art fitting method is presumed to be a
nylon reinforced fire hose. As the appellant has not challenged this statement, we shall
consider the use of a nylon reinforced fire hose to be part of the admitted prior art fitting
method.
The admitted prior art fails to teach wrapping the fire hose with a heating apparatus and
then heating the hose such that the hose shrinks and engages the outer surface of the coupling,
whereby no gap exists between the inner surface of the hose and the outer surface of the
coupling, as required in each of the independent claims. To address this deficiency, the
examiner turns to the teachings of Benson. Benson discloses joining a section of tubing 10 and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007