Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
The Examiner responds that while Zastawny and Burke are related to
pipe couplings, both references “describe much more” (Answer 6). The
Examiner indicates that Zastawny discloses a “push-on joint” for metal pipes
and that Burke discloses that his coupling is useful in “other applications”
(Answer 6). The Examiner “does not necessarily disagree” with . . .
[Appellants’ position] in that the words ‘faucet’ and ‘spout assembly’ are not
found in the references” (Answer 6), however, the Examiner contends that
the prior art analysis does not end there (Answer 6). Rather, the Examiner
contends that Zastawny discloses all the structural features set forth in claim
16 except for the curved portion of the spout (Answer 6-7). The Examiner
defines “spout” as both “a conduit exhibiting a straight portion/spigot
end . . . and a curved portion” and “a fluid conduit” (Answer 7-8).
Moreover, the Examiner treats the preamble language “useable with
multiple interchangeable spouts of varying dimensions” as merely a
statement of intended use (Answer 7). The Examiner indicates that a
statement of intended use in a preamble does not limit the claimed subject
matter when the use is not essential to an understanding of the structure
recited in the claim body (Answer 7). The Examiner contends that Zastawny
teaches a coupling that can be used interchangeably (citing to Zastawny,
col. 2, ll. 8-13) and is adjustably fastened by threaded bolts (Zastawny,
col. 2, ll. 26-30).
The Examiner contends that the Catalina decision cited by Appellants
supports his claim interpretation, rather than the Appellants’ claim
interpretation (Answer 8). The Examiner contends that he did not ignore the
preamble language in his rejection, rather, he takes the position that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007