Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
The appellants argue that the tube can be pulled in a
longitudinal direction, see id., but the appellants provide no
support for that argument. Oetiker’s disclosures that the
compressibility of the tube is slightly in excess of that
required for reliable holding of the tube and that the tube is
held sufficiently tightly that it can operate under a pressure up
to 35 psi (col. 6, lines 34-48) indicate that linear movement of
the tube relative to the connector is prohibited.
The appellants argue that unlocking Oetiker’s sleeve
requires longitudinal movement of the sleeve and that, therefore,
if Oetiker truly prohibited longitudinal movement the structure
could not be unlocked (reply brief, pages 4 and 6-7). The
longitudinal movement prohibited by the appellants’ claim 1 is
longitudinal movement of the second vehicle component (Oetiker’s
tube) relative to the first vehicle component (the main body and
nipple portion of Oetiker’s connector), not longitudinal movement
of the retention member (Oetiker’s sleeve). When the sleeve is
in the locked position there is no longitudinal movement of the
tube relative to the connector (col. 6, lines 20-40).
For the above reasons we affirm the rejection of claims 1-3,
9-12, 24 and 26.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007