Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
Burke discloses a sewer pipe coupling wherein the fluid (i.e., water or
sewage) is conveyed from one pipe to another along the pipeline.
Because we find that neither Zastawny nor Burke discloses a “spout,”
Appellants’ “at least one spout” claim feature is not taught by the applied
prior art. Accordingly, the 103(a) rejection based on these references must
fail because all of the elements of a prima facie case have not been satisfied.
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442-43 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(explaining the three elements of a prima facie case of obviousness include:
(1) motivation for the combination, (2) a reasonable expectation of success,
and (3) a disclosure of all the claim elements by the prior art). See also In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
We reverse the 103(a) rejection of claims 16, 18, and 22 over
Zastawny in view of Burke.
CLAIM 17
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 19-21 under § 103(a) over
Zastawny in view of Burke and Butts (Answer 5). The Examiner indicates
that Zastawny in view of Burke teaches all the features of independent claim
16 from which claim 17 depends, except that Zastawny’s sealing means does
not include a washer as claim 17 recites (Answer 5). The Examiner finds
that the Butts patent “discloses an analogous pipe coupling assembly which
further includes sealing means in the form of a washer 22” (Answer 5). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the pipe coupling art to associate a washer with Zastawny’s sealing means
in order to provide a pipe end seal (Answer 5).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007