Appeal 2006-3125
Application 10/398,045
correspond to the Appellant’s first and second tubes (Answer 3, 9). The
Examiner argues that when the diaphragms are intact the tubes have zero
diameter, and that as the metal cutting devices rupture the diaphragms, the
tube (i.e., diaphragm) diameters change from zero to a value which, at some
point in the rupturing process, is slightly smaller than the metal cutting
device outer diameters (Answer 9). At that point, the Examiner argues,
Field’s device anticipates the Appellant’s claimed invention. See id.
The Examiner’s argument is not well taken because, first, covering an
end of Field’s male coupling halves with a diaphragm does not reduce the
diameters of the male coupling halves to zero. The male coupling halves
still have the same diameters. Second, the Examiner has not established that
at any point Field’s ruptured metal diaphragms fit around the metal cutting
devices in any manner that reasonably can be considered to correspond to
the fit of a tube having a slightly smaller diameter than the outer diameter of
its corresponding connection. It appears more likely that the metal
diaphragm ruptures into an irregular shape.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013