Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
consider that Thompson would have suggested the use of a
constricting sleeve in place of Hedeman's clamp 18 as a
suitable means for pressing a hose against an inner grooved
member to prevent leakage therebetween.
The combination of Hedeman and Thompson would, however,
still differ from claim 8 as to items 4 and 5 specified on
pages 7 and 8 of the brief, i.e., there is no disclosure or
suggestion in the combination of the claimed steps of causing
the sleeve to move to a temporary location on the pipe,
inserting the insert into the unconstricted end portion of the
pipe, and then causing movement of the sleeve toward the end
of the pipe until the pipe is gripped between the insert and
the sleeve. The examiner finds these limitations to have been
obvious in view of Wehringer or Metcalfe.
In Wehringer and Metcalfe, a sleeve (Wehringer 13,
Metcalfe 19) is moved to a temporary location on a pipe
(Wehringer 16, Metcalfe 21), an externally grooved insert
(Wehringer 11, Metcalfe 16) is inserted into the end of the
pipe, and the sleeve is moved toward the end of the pipe until
the pipe is gripped between the insert and the sleeve. In
neither Wehringer nor Metcalfe, however, does the sleeve have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007