Appeal No. 2002-1677 Page 9
Application No. 08/944,817
The appellant argues (brief, p. 6) that the claimed "forged flange" limitation
present in each of claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 is not met by Calvin. We agree for the
reasons set forth above. Moreover, in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in
the appeal, the examiner has not determined that it would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made
Calvin's sections 14 from a forged material. Thus, the examiner has not established a
basis for concluding that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4,
5, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner to consider whether or not the
claims pending in this application are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
appellant's admission of prior art (specification, pages 2-3)1 in view of the prior art
teaching of the use of a clamp to connect piping to a component/flange (e.g., Calvin).
1 The admission relates to a forged flange for connecting piping to various components such as
pumps, valves, tanks, heat exchangers, etc. wherein the piping is connected to the forged flange by
welding and the forged flange is connected to the component by bolts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007