Appeal No. 2000-0655 Page 6
Application No. 08/522,017
From our perspective, Berry would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a
first tubular element can be locked in place within a second tubular element upon insertion
by the frictional interaction of projecting fins located on its outer surface and being of such
height as to be collapsed when the element is pressed into its installed position.
Of course, the mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not
make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so.
See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
explicit teaching provided by Berry is directed to the function of locking elements together.
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Bartholomew’s bushing 550 or elastomeric sealing
member 552 with fins on the outer surface, for there would appear to be no requirement or
reason to lock them to housing 530. This being the case, we conclude that the combined
teachings of Bartholomew and Berry fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 11, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Independent claim 11 also stands rejected as being unpatentable over Rea in view
of Berry. Berry has been discussed above. With reference to Figure 3, Rea discloses a
quick connect coupling comprising a tubular housing 16, a retainer 18, a fluid handling
member 10 received within the retainer, and a seal retainer 22 (Figure 8) that is provided
with “an angled annular pilot surface 22c” (column 4, line 39) which appears to interact with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007