Appeal No. 95-4860
Application No. 08/044,923
Claims 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Claims 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Grunsky.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Grunsky.
Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of Streich.
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Streich and Leroy.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-7 of
the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology appearing in independent claim 12. In lines 9
and 10 we interpret “means for expanding said expandable seal2
from said second end” to be -- means for expanding said
2Reference in this opinion to specific lines in claims is
with respect to the claims as they appear in the appendix to
the appellant’s brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007