Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
preamble language is merely a statement of intended use as discussed
previously (Answer 7-8).
The Examiner also responds that Zastawny’s flanges are “‘attached’
as that term is best understood from . . . [Appellants’] disclosure” (Answer
8). The Examiner cites to Zastawny, column 3, lines 11-15 and Appellants’
Specification, page 9, lines 11-12 as showing that Zastawny’s flanges are
“attached” according to Appellants’ “attachment” description (Answer 8).
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Zastawny teaches a permanent
fastened pipe coupling, the Examiner responds that Appellants have not
indicated where Zastawny discloses a permanent attachment (Answer 8).
Appellants counter in their Reply Brief that Zastawny discloses a
permanent attachment of pipes to each other (Reply Br. 1). Appellants
contend that the portion cited by the Examiner (i.e., Zastawny, col. 2,
ll. 8-13) as showing the interchangeability of the pipe coupling has nothing
to do with Appellants’ “faucet spout assembly with multiple interchangeable
spouts” (Reply Br. 1). Rather, the portion cited by the Examiner relates to
the interchangeability of the flanges 21 and 22 because both are identical
and may fit on either section of pipe (Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants contend
that Zastawny’s interchangeable flanges are different than Appellants’
interchangeable spouts (Reply Br. 2).
Regarding the Examiner’s position that “multiple interchangeable
spouts of varying dimension” is merely a statement of intended use,
Appellants contend such a position is not supported by the court’s holding in
Catalina (Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend that means to facilitate the
interchangeability of spouts is the main focus of their specification and that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007