Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
cylindrical tail portion 74 of the male member 13 of Smith with such a ring and
groove mechanism to limit axial movement of the tail 74 once it is inserted into a
receiving opening to effect coupling. Further, such a modified tail structure in
Smith would be capable of being inserted into a receiving opening in a manifold
and held in place by the action of the retaining ring.
Claim 5 recites the retaining ring being held in place by a snap ring. As
found supra, Smith discloses that the retaining ring 24 can be a snap ring (Smith,
col. 6, l. 26).
The feature of claim 6 of providing for two grooves to accommodate varying
plate thicknesses cannot be seen as an unobvious feature in that common sense
dictates that groove placement must be located coincidentally with an abutment
surface on the plate or within a receiving opening to effect a locking connection.
The application of common sense may control the reasoning to combine prior art
teachings. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Since the subject matter of claims 8 and 9 is the same as that recited in
claims 2 and 3, respectively, our reasons for finding claims 8 and 9 unpatentable
are the same as set forth supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude:
1. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013