Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 1. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as well. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 572 (CCPA 1982) (explaining anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b)/103(a) rejections of
argued claim 1 and non-argued claims 2-3 and 7 over Adkins, II.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ADKINS, II IN VIEW OF FINLEY, WEST OR BATES
Appellants argue that there is no motivation from the prior art to
combine either Finley’s bolts (6), West’s rods (I), or Bates’ two side-screw
rods (J) with Adkins, II’s attachment of the flanges (13’ and 13”) of the fan
housing (13) to pipe adaptor (17) and exhaust pipe (21) (Br. 4-5).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the reasons below.
First, Adkins, II discloses that the pipe adaptor (17) and exhaust pipe
(21) are attached to flange 13’ and flange 13”, respectively, of the fan
housing 13 “by means well known in the art, such as bolts, screws, welding,
and the like” (Adkins, II col. 3, ll. 8-11, 60-63). Thus, Adkins, II provides
explicit motivation for combining Finley’s bolts (6), West’s rods (I), or
Bates’ “two side-screw rods” (J) to attach Adkins, II’s flanges (13’ and 13”)
of the fan housing (13) to pipe adaptor (17) and exhaust pipe (21).
Second, Finley, West, or Bates discloses using “at least one support
rod extending through at least two flanges” (claim 5) is a well known means
to connect two pipes with an intermediate section of pipe (Finley 1, ll. 70-
87; West 1, ll. 61-91; Bates col. 2, ll. 29-36). Moreover, similar to Adkins,
II’s description of the attachment means noted above, Finley and West
describe the rod connection means as being “bolts” or “bolt-rods,”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013