Appeal No. 2003-1727
Application No. 09/589,015
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all of
the arguments and evidence advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the Section 103 rejection for essentially those reasons
set forth in the Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
The examiner’s Section 103 rejection is premised upon obviousness of replacing O-ring 28
in the hose coupling assembly disclosed in Chisnell with the gasket disclosed in Sylvester. See the
Answer, pages 4-7, together with the final Office action dated March 13, 2002, pages 2-4.
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is flawed because of the examiner’s failure to
consider the different utilities of the gasket and the sealing means disclosed in Sylvester and
Chisnell, respectively, as urged by the appellants at page 7 of the Brief.
Specifically, we observe that Chisnell is directed to using a combination of an O-ring and a
mechanical locking system as a sealing means in hose-fitting assemblies “designed for use in high
pressure fluid conducting system such as automotive air conditioning systems.” See column 1, lines
5-10, together with column 2, lines 11-21. We observe that Chisnell teaches that this particular
combination “address[es] completely and meet[s] effectively and economically the stringent current
requirements for automotive air condition hose assemblies which require in effect, that there be no
leakage of refrigerant gas from the system for up to 12 years.” See column 2, lines 4-9.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007