Appeal No. 2004-0917
Application No. 09/684,210
said conduit port and said alignment sleeve pilots
said fastener into said fastener passage of said
connecting block to align said conduit axially within
said conduit port.
4. The alignment device as claimed in Claim 1,
wherein said alignment sleeve is chamfered to enable
easier assembly of said connecting block thereover.
The examiner relies on the following documents as evidence
of unpatentability:
Stendahl 1,409,606 Mar. 14, 1922
Le et al. 5,603,152 Feb. 18, 1997
(Le)
Pickett, Jr. et al. 6,193,283 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
(Pickett)
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, and 15 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as unpatentable over patented claim 3 of Pickett
(examiner’s answer mailed Jul. 30, 2003, paper 18,
page 6);
II. claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over patented claim 4 of Pickett in view
of Stendahl (id. at page 7);
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007