Appeal No. 2004-1269 Page 4
Application No. 09/649,157
the same as the relationship between the anchor body integrally
formed tubular portion and the seal member as recited in appealed
claims 39 and 40. In this regard, the examiner (final rejection,
page 2)1 argues, as a general proposition, that:
[t]he interchangability of protrusions and indentations
on tubular members which are to be coupled, as well as
which tubular member is to be the “female” element and
which is to be the “male” element, are mechanical
equivalents well within the purview of one of ordinary
skill in the art. In view of this, it would have been
obvious to modify ‘235 whereby the seal 12 had a
portion large enough to fit over tubular portion 16 as
well as to have a protrusion on either the outer
surface of the tubular portion or the inner surface of
the seal member.
Alternatively, the examiner (final rejection, page 3)
maintains that:
Wlodkowski et al is provided to teach that locating a
seal over the end of the tubular portion is well known.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to
modify ‘235 whereby his seal 12 is located over the
tubular portion, such providing a more effective seal.
However, the examiner has not established, on this record,
how that proposed modified structure of Sorkin corresponds to
appellant’s claimed structure which includes a seal member
having: (1) a specifically defined first annular portion that
extends around the tubular member where the seal member is
1 At page 3 of the answer, the examiner refers us to the
final rejection for the examiner’s statement of the rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007