Appeal No. 2002-0573
Application 09/150,422
If the examiner intends to merely use the welding mentioned
in MacDonald to affix the fitting (30) of Ballard to the vertical
pipe (24), we find no factual basis in the applied prior art
references for any such combination. Moreover, even if such a
combination were attempted, we do not see that the structure
claimed by appellant would be the result. As can be clearly seen
in Figures 2 and 8 of Ballard, the fitting (30) and vertical pipe
(24), even if welded together, would not have outer surfaces “in
alignment with each other to form a smooth outer surface of the
same circumference for the nipple and the coupling and to form an
integral drop nipple-coupling having the outside appearance of an
integral pipe,” as required in claim 1 on appeal. Similarly, the
welding of the fitting (30) to the vertical pipe (24) in Ballard
would not result in an integral combination pipe drop nipple and
reducing coupling assembly as defined in claim 4 on appeal, since
appellant’s assembly is required to have “a smooth outer surface
of the same circumference for the drop nipple and the coupling,”
which clearly will not be present in Ballard as modified by
MacDonald. Nor do we see any teaching or suggestion in Ballard,
Jackson and MacDonald of having an abutting relationship between
the upper end surface of the reducing coupling and the bottom end
surface of the drop nipple, as required in appellant’s claims on
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007