Appeal No. 2006-2450
Application No. 10/211,828
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9
through 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 through 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant states, on page 5 of the brief, that the invention involves a “design
[that] permits a greater threaded area to hold the seal retainer without an increase in
overall size of the coupling member.” Appellant argues:
The Rogers reference describes a connector having no threaded members within
the female coupling. Seal 36 is held in adapter 33 by body 34 which fits around
the outside of one end of adapter 33. There is no seal retainer "insertable into the
receiving chamber" as required by claim 1 or "insertable into the internal bore" as
required by claim 17. Moreover, part of the second outer ring (34) does not have
"external threads engaged to the receiving chamber" as required by claim 10.
Appellant also argues that Rogers discloses only one seal and does not contain a second
seal as recited in independent claim 1. On page 6 of the brief, appellant argues that
“both Rogers and Smith lack the claimed ‘second outer ring having an externally
threaded area to engage the female member.’” Finally, on pages 6 and 7 of the brief,
appellant argues that the rejection lacks motivation to combine the references as asserted
by the examiner.
The examiner, in reply, states that Smith, not Rogers, was relied upon to teach the
threaded members in the female coupling and the second seal. See page 4 of the answer.
Further, the examiner states one of “ordinary skill in the art would recognize overlapping
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007