Appeal No. 97-4248
Application 08/567,617
or possibilities. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ
323, 326 (CCPA 1981). Looking at McConnell’s Fig. 3, we do not
consider that it can be said that the two tubes will inevitably
contact each other at area 38. When fitting 14 of tube 12 moves
clockwise relative to tube 28, it appears to be more likely, or
at least equally as likely, that it would contact tube 28 at the
transition portion identified by appellants in the vicinity of
flared portion 40. Thus it cannot be concluded that McConnell
discloses an O-ring which is inherently located at the pivot
point (as defined in claim 1), and the rejection under § 102(b)
therefore will not be sustained.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will likewise not be sustained since the additional reference,
Frye, does not supply the deficiencies noted above with regard to
McConnell.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3 to 10
is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007