Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
an internal diameter smaller than the external diameter of the
pipe, so that the pipe is constricted by the sleeve; rather,
the sleeve's inner diameter is the same or larger than the
outer diameter of the pipe (Wehringer, page 2, col. 1, lines
21 to 24; Metcalfe, col. 2, lines 5 to 8). The examiner
concludes that in view of Wehringer or Metcalfe, it would have
been obvious "to position [the] sleeve at a remote location
and then force the sleeve over the end of the pipe after the
coupling has been inserted into the pipe" (answer, page 6).
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant's brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner's answer, we conclude that the rejection of
claim 8 is not well taken. In our view, Wehringer or Metcalfe
would not have suggested moving the sleeve of the
Hedeman/Thompson combination to a temporary location, and then
back to a pipe-gripping position, because the sleeves of
Wehringer and Metcalfe are, as noted above, of such an
internal diameter as to be relatively freely movable on the
exterior of the pipe, whereas the sleeve b of the
Hedeman/Thompson combination is not. Since in Hedeman as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007