Appeal No. 2002-1228 Page 5
Application No. 09/124,831
flange parallel to the axis of the pipe, and also installing a plurality of alignment stubs
(13) extending through several of the bolt holes in the flange. The second pipe is then
lowered until its flange rests upon the stabilizing elements, and subsequently is moved
laterally toward the first flange and then rotated until the alignment stubs are received in
the bolt holes of the second flange. Once the pipe flanges are aligned in this fashion,
bolts are installed and the stabilizing elements and alignment stubs are removed. See
columns 5 and 6 and Figures 11-16. Thus, White fails to teach that the method of
aligning pipe ends under water disclosed therein also is suitable, in whole or in part, to
align elements or apparatus other than pipe flanges under water and, as explained
below, the particular sequence of steps recited in the appellants’ claims.
The extent of the teaching provided by AAPA is that poor etch uniformity results
when electrode assemblies are not properly aligned on the plasma etching apparatus
and that, in the appellants’ view, the prior art methods such as visual alignment have
deficiencies which result in poor alignment of these components.
At the outset, we agree with the appellants that the recitations in the preambles
of these method claims are not merely statements of intended use but provide
antecedents for establishing the terms and limits of the claimed methods (Revised
Brief, page 12). This being the case, even considering, arguendo, that White is
analogous art, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either White
or AAPA which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to select, from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007