Appeal No. 2001-0201 Page 7
Application No. 08/779,706
Second, while Weaver does suggest that the "ramp angle"
is a result effective variable that needs to be selected based
upon the diameter of the piping (page 2, lines 105-113), we
have found no specific teaching in Weaver that the "gasket
thickness" is a result effective variable. Moreover, even if
the "gasket thickness" were a result effective variable, the
examiner has not presented any evidence that the claimed
"gasket face area" is a result effective variable.
Lastly, we disagree with the examiner's position (answer,
p. 5) that claim 6 of Fandetti suggests more than one sealing
means may be used. In that regard, Fandetti clearly teaches
(column 3, lines 31-35) that a sealing gasket may be
interposed between his identical coupling units 10 and 11 and
that such a gasket may register with recesses 22 of the
identical coupling units 10 and 11. While in accordance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, the "fluid sealing means" recited in claim 6
1(...continued)
obvious, however, the examiner did not incorporate this
conclusion of obviousness into the rejection before us in this
appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007