Appeal No. 2000-0655 Page 2
Application No. 08/522,017
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a quick connect fluid coupling. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 11, which
appears in the appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Berry 5,383,688 Jan. 24, 1995
Bartholomew 5,413,387 May 9, 1995
Rea et al. (Rea) 5,542,717 Aug. 6, 1996
(filed Jun. 7, 1995)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bartholomew in view of Berry.
Claims 11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rea in view of Berry.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 19) and the final rejection (Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
1On page 4 of the Answer, the examiner states that “claims 11, and 13-15 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) . . . [as] set forth in . . . Paper No. 12.” Since two
rejections including claim 11 were recited in Paper No. 12, and both have been discussed
in the Answer and in the appellants’ Brief, we shall consider both as being before us on
appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007