Appeal No. 2005-1175 Page 6
Application No. 09/727,465
ranges for the threads 51 in the Lewis apparatus would have arrived at the ranges
recited in claim 12. Specifically, according to appellant’s specification (page 3), the
recited values or ranges were arrived at as an optimization to produce a thread which is
more resistant to dirt, requires fewer revolutions to screw or unscrew the nozzle, suffers
from cross-threading less frequently, does not require thickening of the threaded walls
of the air nozzle ring or gun body and causes the air nozzle ring to be perfectly centered
when screwed onto the gun body. Lewis is concerned with centering the tip 30 of the
delivery tube 14 within the opening of the air cap 26, but achieves this with a
combination of trapezoidal guide threads and sharp threads 53. In fact, Lewis implies
that the sharp threads primarily serve this function. Additionally, because the tip 30
extends well beyond the threaded region, resistance to dirt is less of a consideration to
Lewis and Lewis does not express any concern for minimizing revolutions required to
screw and unscrew the delivery tube. In summary, the examiner has pointed to nothing
which would suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to provide
trapezoid threads, modified from the DIN 103 in the manner of appellant’s invention,
absent the teachings in appellant’s disclosure. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for modifying the trapezoid threads of Lewis in the manner proposed by the
examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007