Appeal 2006-2711
Application 10/662,935
member or bolt 29 of Thulin integrally with the knuckle joint member 25.
We therefore conclude that it would have been obvious to modify Thulin as
proposed by the Examiner, in order to facilitate tightening of the connection,
to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 13. The rejection of claim 13,
and claims 1, 2, 8, and 16, which stand or fall with claim 13, as unpatentable
over Thulin in view of Warren is sustained.
We also sustain the rejections of claim 3 as unpatentable over Thulin
in view of Warren and Wellington, claim 4 as unpatentable over Thulin in
view of Warren and Campbell, and claim 5 as unpatentable over Thulin in
view of Warren and Judell, as Appellant has not challenged such apart from
the rejection of claim 13 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Appellant separately argues the further combination of Smith with
Thulin and Warren. The issue with regard to the rejections of claims 6 and
14 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren and Smith and claims 9,
10, and 12 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren, Judell, and Smith
is whether Smith would have suggested providing a complementary boss on
each of the knuckle joint members of Thulin rather than on just one of the
two members.
The Examiner relies on Smith for its teaching of providing
complementary ledges and bosses on both sections of the joint of a water-
pipe. Specifically, as best seen in Fig. 2 of Smith, the mating face of one
section of the joint is formed with an inner rim e (a ledge) and an annular
flange h (a boss), the annular flange provided with an internal screw, and the
outer surface of the other section is formed with an annular groove, the
groove receiving a ring d provided with an external screw onto which the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013