Appeal No. 2000-1280
Application No. 09/110,785
collar (col. 6, lines 9 to 19). Absent any teaching or
suggestion that providing an interference fit would favorably
(or at least not adversely) affect the location and/or
magnitude of the stress in the tube, i.e., would not increase
the failure problem which Apblett's joint was intended to
solve (col. 1, lines 31 to 39), one of ordinary skill would
not have found it obvious to shrink fit collar 48 on to tube
44 simply for ease of assembly.
However, notwithstanding our disagreement with the
examiner's position, we will sustain the examiner's position
because independent claims 1 and 10 are both readable on
Boice. The Boice patent discloses first and second tubes 2,
1, a
collar 9 fitted with an interference fit about first tube 2
(col. 3, lines 3 to 6) with the end portion 12 of tube 2
extending beyond the end 11 of collar 9 (as shown in Fig. 2,
the ends are tapered inwardly, see col, 2 lines 24 to 28), and
second tube 1 having fitting 4 rigidly connected to the ends
of collar 9 and first tube 2 by weld 14. While this is
tantamount to a holding that claims 1 and 10 are anticipated
by Boice under
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007