Appeal No. 2002-1677 Page 7
Application No. 08/944,817
Akzo N.V. v. International Trade Commission, 808 F.2d 1471, 1480, 1 USPQ2d 1241,
1245-46 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2490 (1987); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d
586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972).
In the anticipation rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner (final rejection,
p. 2) ascertained that Figure 2 of Calvin
shows a pipe-to-component connector system comprising: a forged (see
"wrought" in col. 1, line 30) steel (which is a material in accordance with ASTM
Std A105, see p.22 item 4.1 of the standard.) flange 26 with an extended neck
14 with a circumferential groove and a raised portion; and a metallic piping
segment "P" with a circumferential groove. The grooves are shown as
cooperating in order to receive a clamp 24. In col. 6, Calvin discloses that flange
26 is made according to U.S. standards.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 4-5; reply brief, p. 2) that the claimed "forged
flange" limitation present in each of claims 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 14 to 16 is not met by
Calvin's section 14 having a flange 26. We agree. While Calvin teaches (column 1,
lines 24-29) that "[i]t is well know that hardened metal has superior abrasion resistance,
and that a wrought metal housing has desirable strength properties. U.S. Pat. No.
5,044,670, issued to Alexander Esser on Sep. 3, 1991, exemplifies the use of hardened
metal wear surfaces and a wrought steel outer member," Calvin does not teach that
sections 14 with flanges 26 are made from a hardened/wrought/forged metal.
Accordingly, we can not support the examiner's rationale for the rejection of claims 1 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007