Appeal No. 2004-0917
Application No. 09/684,210
compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195
USPQ at 433-34.
The appellants argue that “any alignment or misalignment
between the conduit 12 and the conduit port 244 [in Pickett’s
Figure 7] occurs before the fastener passage 68 comes into
contact with the engagement device 220” and that there is a
clearance between the outer diameter of the body portion of the
engagement device 220 and the fastener passage 68. (Substitute
appeal brief, page 13; see also reply brief filed Oct. 6, 2003,
paper 19, page 4.) Regarding these arguments, we agree with and
therefore refer to the examiner’s reasoning on page 10 of the
answer. Moreover, even if we accept the appellants’ argument
that “there is absolutely no communication between the fastener
passage 68 and the outside diameter of the engagement device
when the assembly is completed” (emphasis added), appealed claim
1 fails to recite any limitation that would serve to distinguish
over the prior art device.
With respect to appealed claim 4, the appellants contend
that the examiner “does not make clear how or where the collar
15 taught by Stendahl could be combined with the teachings of
Pickett...” (Substitute appeal brief, page 15.) This argument
is unpersuasive. The examiner has identified some motivation or
a suggestion in the prior art to use an engagement device that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007