Appeal No. 2006-1294
Application No. 10/430,963
With respect to the anticipation rejection based on Pelton these rejections are
not sustained. Although Pelton does state that the bushings 18 are interchangeable,
we agree with appellant that this does not necessarily mean that they are adjustable
in length. We deem it far more likely that the adjustability is to fit shafts of
different diameters. With respect to claim 31 we note that Pelton is designed to
rotate with the shafts and the coupling. Therefore there is no base mounting
member disclosed in Pelton.
Turning to the anticipation rejection with respect to Hogan we agree with the
appellant that the sleeves 66a and 66b of Hogan do not appear to be adjustable.
Claims 1 through 3, 27 and 29 do not lack novelty over Hogan. With respect to
claim 31 we note that the two halves of Hogan are connected to base member 14
via base mount portion 60 on the two upper quadrants of the housings of Hogan.
Appellant argues that Hogan is not a coupling. As noted above, however, as
clearly illustrated in Figure 8, one pump of Hogan can be used to couple the motor
of Hogan to a second pump installed outboard of first pump 12. Therefore it is our
finding that claim 31 lacks novelty over the Hogan reference. For claims 32-34
note base mount portion 60 is integrally molded to the housing structure.
Accordingly, it is our finding that claims 31-34 lack novelty over the Hogan
reference. With respect to claim 35 Hogan does not disclose an elongated opening,
and therefore claims 35 and 39 do not lack novelty over Hogan.
We also do not affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 31-35 and 39 as
anticipated by Powell. Claim 31 requires a pivotal connection between a first
guard portion and second portion. The examiner points to slots 38, 48 which
provide an opening for the tab on leg 50. However this is not a pivotal connection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013