Appeal No. 2004-1361
Application No. 09/430,574
With respect to the first argued distinction, the appellant
submits that “[t]he female connecting block is so named because
it receives the male component [i.e., the tube]” (brief, page 6).
As clearly shown in Figure 8 of the Schnell reference, however,
the retainer member 172 and its clamp attachment region 174
define a connecting block which receives the tube. Hence,
Schnell’s retainer member 172 and clamp attachment region 174
embody a “female” connecting block to the extent that such is
broadly recited in claim 1. The appellant’s contention (see page
6 in the brief) that this claim limitation should be construed
more narrowly in accordance with the description and illustration
of female connecting block 40 in the underlying specification has
no basis in law.
As for the second argued distinction, the appellant observes
that the tapered portion 188 on Schnell’s tube seats flatly
against the chamfer 198 and thus “the difference here between
Schnell and Applicant amounts to a difference between line
contact (Applicant) and surface contact (Schnell)” (brief, page
7). Suffice to say, however, that Figure 8 in the Schnell
reference clearly shows tapered portion 188 seating against the
transition surface at the intersection of the throughbore 184 and
the chamfer 198, and that claim 1 neither requires line contact
nor excludes surface contact.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007