Appeal 2006-2026
Application 10/300,334
Appellants indicate that their arguments made above with respect to
claim 16 regarding Zastawny in view of Burke, apply to the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 17 (Br. 6). Appellants add that Butts, like Zastawny and
Burke, fails to “disclose, teach or suggest any of the claimed features”
(Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants argue that Butts does not disclose a
“faucet,” spouts, spout receptacles, or flanges (Br. 7). According to
Appellants, Butts’ invention is directed to permanently holding pipes
together which is contrary to Appellants’ assembly that permits “ready
interchangeability of spouts” (Br. 7). Appellants further contend that Butts’
washer is not positioned in a “central passage of the spout receptacle” as
claim 17 requires (Br. 7).
The Examiner responds that Butts does not disclose that a permanent
pipe coupling is formed (Answer 9). Rather, the Examiner contends that
Butts’ disclosure at page 1, lines 78-83, that the thimble 10 may be reversely
rotated to separate rusted pipes is the exact opposite of a “permanent”
attachment (Answer 9). The Examiner indicates that “Butts would be
considered pertinent, by one skilled in the pipe/conduit connection art, to the
problem of providing a seal between the spigot end of one pipe, and the bell
(receptacle) end of another pipe” (Answer 9).
We cannot sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 17 over Zastawny in
view of Burke and Butts.
As we discussed above with regard to claim 16, from which claim 17
depends, Zastawny in view of Burke fails to disclose or suggest a “spout.”
Because the “at least one spout” claim feature is not taught by the applied
prior art, the § 103(a) rejection based on the proposed combination of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007