Appeal No. 2000-1280
Application No. 09/110,785
Boice discloses that it is known in the art to
provide a similar type coupling having the
configuration of the first tube 2 extending beyond
the collar 9 on body second tube 4 wherein the
collar 9 is press fit onto the first tube 2. See
column 3, lines 1-5. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to press fit collar 48 onto tube
44 of Apblett, Jr. such as taught by Boice, in order
to provide a more secure coupling for the inserted
tube and further to insure the two elements stay
together during the welding process.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants' brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner's answer, we conclude that the examiner's
position is not well taken. Boice discloses a different type
of joint from that of Apblett, and although Boice discloses in
a general way holding a collar 9 to be welded in position by
means of a shrink (interface) fit, we do not consider that
this would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the collar 48 of Apblett be held in position in the same
manner. Apblett discloses that the inner diameter of the
collar is "just slightly larger" than the outer diameter of
tube (pigtail) 44 (col. 4, lines 46 to 49), and attributes to
this arrangement displacement of the point of maximum bending
movement of tube 44 from weld 51 to the free end 48a of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007