Ex parte Greig

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2001

08553321 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN M. GREIG
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
_______________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2 to
4 and 8 to 12, all the claims remaining in the application.
The claims on appeal are drawn to a method of joining a
pipe to a coupling, and are reproduced in the appendix of
appellant's brief.
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
1 Paper No. 16, January 13, 1999.
2
The references applied in the final rejection1 are:
Thompson 96,286 Oct. 26,
1869
Hedeman 2,260,454 Oct. 28, 1941
Wehringer 2,319,024 May
11, 1943
Metcalfe et al. 4,293,147 Oct. 6,
1981
(Metcalfe)
Claims 2 to 4 and 8 to 12 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hedeman in view of
Thompson and either of Wehringer or Metcalfe.
Hedeman discloses a pipe (hose) to coupling (nipple)
joint in which an end (insert) of the coupling, having a ridge
16 at its end and circumferential projections 17 on its
exterior, is inserted into the end of the pipe and a clamp 18
is positioned around the pipe, pressing it against the insert.
Hedeman's disclosure concerning the clamp is (col. 2, lines 26
to 33):
The numeral 18 designates a clamp of any suitable
type for the purpose of pressing the hose against
the annular ridge 16 and assuring the effective
sealing of the connection between the hose and the
nipple. The use of a clamp is not essential but is
desirable where the hose is to be used for
transmitting liquid under substantial pressure.
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
3
Appellant and the examiner agree that claim 8, the only
independent claim on appeal, differs from Hedeman in the five
respects specified on pages 7 and 8 of appellant's brief. The
first two of these are that Hedeman discloses a clamp 18,
rather than a "right tubular sleeve having a fixed largest
internal diameter less than the external free state diameter
of the pipe," as recited in claim 8. With regard to this
limitation, the examiner cites Thompson, which discloses a
hose-to-coupling joint in which a ring b having an internal
diameter smaller than the external diameter of the hose a is
positioned near the end of the hose to compress it (Fig. 1),
and then the neck c of the coupling, which has external
grooves, is forced into the compressed area, "pinching [the
hose] between the inner surface of ring b and the outer
surface of c" (col. 2, lines 16 and 17). The examiner takes
the position that it would have been obvious to utilize a ring
(sleeve) as disclosed by Thompson as the clamp 18 of Hedeman,
the Thompson ring being a clamp "of any suitable type."
Although appellant argues that such a modification of Hedeman
would not have been obvious (brief, pages 10 and 11), we
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
4
consider that Thompson would have suggested the use of a
constricting sleeve in place of Hedeman's clamp 18 as a
suitable means for pressing a hose against an inner grooved
member to prevent leakage therebetween.
The combination of Hedeman and Thompson would, however,
still differ from claim 8 as to items 4 and 5 specified on
pages 7 and 8 of the brief, i.e., there is no disclosure or
suggestion in the combination of the claimed steps of causing
the sleeve to move to a temporary location on the pipe,
inserting the insert into the unconstricted end portion of the
pipe, and then causing movement of the sleeve toward the end
of the pipe until the pipe is gripped between the insert and
the sleeve. The examiner finds these limitations to have been
obvious in view of Wehringer or Metcalfe.
In Wehringer and Metcalfe, a sleeve (Wehringer 13,
Metcalfe 19) is moved to a temporary location on a pipe
(Wehringer 16, Metcalfe 21), an externally grooved insert
(Wehringer 11, Metcalfe 16) is inserted into the end of the
pipe, and the sleeve is moved toward the end of the pipe until
the pipe is gripped between the insert and the sleeve. In
neither Wehringer nor Metcalfe, however, does the sleeve have
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
5
an internal diameter smaller than the external diameter of the
pipe, so that the pipe is constricted by the sleeve; rather,
the sleeve's inner diameter is the same or larger than the
outer diameter of the pipe (Wehringer, page 2, col. 1, lines
21 to 24; Metcalfe, col. 2, lines 5 to 8). The examiner
concludes that in view of Wehringer or Metcalfe, it would have
been obvious "to position [the] sleeve at a remote location
and then force the sleeve over the end of the pipe after the
coupling has been inserted into the pipe" (answer, page 6).
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant's brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner's answer, we conclude that the rejection of
claim 8 is not well taken. In our view, Wehringer or Metcalfe
would not have suggested moving the sleeve of the
Hedeman/Thompson combination to a temporary location, and then
back to a pipe-gripping position, because the sleeves of
Wehringer and Metcalfe are, as noted above, of such an
internal diameter as to be relatively freely movable on the
exterior of the pipe, whereas the sleeve b of the
Hedeman/Thompson combination is not. Since in Hedeman as
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
6
modified in view of Thompson, the sleeve is in its final
(pipe-gripping) position when the coupling is inserted into
the end of the pipe, and the sleeve would have to be forced to
move along the exterior of the pipe to any other position, we
do not consider that Wehringer or Metcalfe would have
motivated one of ordinary skill to force the Hedeman/Thompson
sleeve along the pipe to another, temporary location, insert
the coupling, and then force the sleeve back to its pipe-
gripping position.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8, as well as of
dependent claims 2 to 4 and 9 to 12, will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 2 to 4 and 8 to
12 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 2000-0901
Application No. 08/553,321
7
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN F. GONZALES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
IAC:lmb
LARSON & TAYLOR
TRANSPOTOMAC PLAZA
1199 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET
SUITE 900
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314