Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
(8) Claims 6, 8 and 9 on the basis of Booth in view of Bellis and
Smith.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
We shall consider the ten rejections posed by the examiner
in the order in which they appear in the Answer. The first two
are on the basis of anticipation, which is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of the
claimed invention (see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada., 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Claims 1, 2, 9
and 12 stand rejected as being anticipated by Domnikov. These
claims all are directed to a waveguide seal assembly comprising
an inner conductive part, an outer part, and a gas sealing
element located in a gap between the two other elements. Among
the claim requirements is that the outer part be "separable" from
the inner part, and the sealing element "removably" fit in the
gap. The waveguide seal disclosed in Domnikov comprises the same
three elements arranged in the same fashion, but they are secured
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007