Appeal 2007-1252
Application 10/915,714
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bernardi. Claims 6 through 12 are all ultimately
dependent upon independent claim 1. Initially, we note that it appears illogical that
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 relies upon Bernardi in view of
Katwala, but the rejection of claims 6 through 12, which depend upon claim 1 (and
thereby contain all of the limitations of claim 1) does not also rely upon the
teachings of Katwala. Nonetheless, similar to our discussion above, we do not find
that Bernardi teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1. Thus, for
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bernardi.
As discussed supra, the Examiner has not clearly stated which prior art
teachings the Examiner is relying upon to reject claims 19 through 40.
Independent claims 19 and 34 contain limitations directed to the sealing member
similar to those discussed in claim 1 and further identify that the sealing member is
on “an outside surface” of the coupler member. As discussed supra, we do not
find that Bernardi, the combination of Bernardi in view of Katwala, or the
combination of Bernardi in view of Katwala and Below, teaches or suggests the
sealing member “on” the coupler member and “abutting” the coupler housing as
claimed. Thus, regardless of whether the Examiner intended to reject independent
claims 19 and 34 as being unpatentable over Bernardi, the combination of Bernardi
in view of Katwala, or the combination of Bernardi in view of Katwala and Below,
we do not find that the combination of the references teaches the claimed
limitations. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19
through 40.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013