Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 8
Application No. 08/543,153
35 having complimentary profiles which when engaged in
abutment axially centralize the ring 35 and seal element 25.
However, Storms does disclose (column 3, lines 45-49 and
column 4, lines 4-24) that the outer peripheral surface 35a of
the ring 35 is in opposed contacting relationship with the
inner peripheral surface of the seal element 25 and that it is
preferred that upon installation, there be a tight fit, and
preferably an interference fit. Accordingly, Storms does
disclose the inner circumferential face of the seal element 25
and the outer circumferential face of the ring 35 having
complimentary profiles which inherently prevents relative
axial movement between the ring 35 and seal element 25. Claim
7 is readable on Storms since claim 7 requires only that the
complimentary profiles centralize the ring member and seal
body and/or prevent relative axial movement between the ring
member and seal body. Thus, the appellant's argument with
regard to claim 7 does not persuade us of any error in the
examiner's rejection.
With regard to claim 10, the appellant states (brief, p.
8) that the limitations recited in claim 10 are not disclosed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007