Appeal 2007-1252
Application 10/915,714
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Bernardi in view of Katwala. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 3 through 4 of the Answer. Claims 5 and 14 through 18 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernardi in view of
Katwala and Below. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 4 of the
Answer. Claims 6 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bernardi. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5
of the Answer. The Examiner states that claims 19 through 40 are rejected for the
same reasons as applied to claims 1 through 18, however, the Examiner provides
no indication as to which statute and what prior art is being relied upon to reject
claims 19 through 40 (see page 5 of the Answer). Throughout the opinion, we
make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (received Jun. 13, 2006 and Oct. 23,
2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed Aug. 23, 2006) for the respective
details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1 through 3 and
5 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant asserts that the
combination of Bernardi and Katwala does not teach a sealing member disposed on
the coupling member and abutting the first end of the coupler housing connected
thereto as claimed in independent claims 1, 19, and 34. (Br. 8- 9.)
The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner, on page 6
of the Answer, finds that Katwala teaches a sealing member (figure 2, un-
numbered ring positioned between items 16 and 30), on a circumferential surface
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013