Appeal No. 2002-0027
Application No. 08/963,812
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
above-noted rejection will be sustained. Our reasons follow.
According to the examiner, both Prior Art Illustration C1
and Vallourec disclose a tapping connection like that claimed by
appellant, with the exception that each of those references shows
the membrane blocking the bore of the connector as a planar or
flat membrane rather than an “arcuate membrane” as required in
appellant’s claim 18. To address this deficiency in the prior
art, the examiner turns to Wood, urging that Wood “clearly
teaches a tapping structure with a concave/convex tapping
membrane disposed within a bore of a containment structure”
(final rejection, page 2). Based on the combined teachings of the
applied references, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to substitute the membrane of Wood for the
flat membrane of either Prior Art Illustration C1 or Vallourec.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007