Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
U.S.C. § 102(b), but enter a new ground of rejection against claims 4-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Smith alone.
Appellant first argues that the description of the “tail” as set forth by the
Specification differs from what is disclosed in Smith as the cylindrical portion 74
of the male member 13, and thus the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
improper (Appeal Br. 3, 4).
We reject this argument because the Specification describes characteristics
of the tail which are congruent with those of the cylindrical portion 74 of the male
member 13 in Smith. For example, the Specification describes the tail as being
sized diametrically to fit through at least one precut hole (Specification 2: ¶0006).
As found supra, this relative sizing similarly occurs in Smith as between the
cylindrical tail 74 of the male member 13 and the corresponding bore 61 in the
receiving member 22 thereby allowing the tail 74 to be inserted into receiving bore
61 (Smith, col. 7, ll. 31-32). Further, it is argued by Appellant that the
Specification describes the tail as having a “clearance between the outer diameter
of the tail and the inner diameter of the hole … such that the tail will fit easily
through the hole” (Appeal Br. 4). However, as found supra, in Smith, the
cylindrical tail portion 74 of the member 13 is likewise sized diametrically smaller
than the corresponding bore diameter 61 so as to be inserted into the bore 61
(Smith, col. 7, ll. 30-32) in such a way that a seal 26 is needed to take up the
clearance (Smith, col. 6, ll. 9-14, 16-20).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013