Appeal 2007-1909
Application 10/608,290
Fact 1 and 7). Bosco further discloses a separate tool which is used to draw
together interlocking members of the clamp (Finding of Fact 1). Bosco’s tool
comprises a lever arm having oppositely disposed claws pivotally mounted, so that
the claws are drawn inwardly toward each other by the movement of the lever arm
(Finding of Fact 5). Bosco’s claws are adapted to engage lugs on the clamp and
are not disclosed as being adapted for insertion in an aperture in a first edge flange
of a repair clamp (Finding of Fact 6). Murray’s clamp, in operation, uses a lever to
force a link lever laterally and downwardly, thus causing the face of the clamp’s
jaw to swing inwardly and engage a wall of a concrete mold (Finding of Fact 10).
As such, Murray’s clamp does not include an arm adapted for insertion in an
aperture in a first edge flange of a repair clamp (Finding of Fact 11).
The Examiner has not provided any evidence showing a prior art pipe repair
clamp having an aperture in a first edge flange, so as to provide any basis for his
finding that Bosco’s claw is adapted for insertion into such an aperture. Where the
functional limitation in a claim expressly or impliedly requires a particular
structure different from that in the prior art, the claimed subject matter is
distinguishable from the prior art. Since there is no evidence on the record before
us of the size or shape of a prior art aperture in a pipe repair clamp flange, the
Examiner has failed to make a prima facie showing that Bosco’s claws are adapted
for insertion in an aperture in the first edge flange of the repair clamp, as recited in
claims 1 and 21, and thus he has failed to set forth a prima facie showing of
obviousness of claims 1 and 21 and claims 2-20 and 22-40, which depend
therefrom.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013