Appeal No. 2001-0201 Page 6
Application No. 08/779,706
skill in the art to arrive at the recited values [ramp angle,
gasket size/thickness], since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable
involves only routine skill in the art."
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the subject matter of claim 1. We agree for the
reasons that follow.
First, in the final rejection, the examiner did not
correctly determine all the differences between Fandetti and
claim 1 since claim 1 recites that the hose coupling member is
for use with a 1/2 to 7/8 inch hose and that the coupling
member has opposing identical fastening means and a
cylindrical opening therethrough. In our view, these
limitations impose a size limitation on the hose coupling
member that the examiner has not dealt with in the rejection
before us in this appeal.1
1We are aware of the examiner's view set forth in the
response to argument section of the answer (p. 3) that the
claimed hose sizes are common hose sizes and therefore
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007