Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 9
Application No. 08/543,153
by Storms. We do not agree. As shown in Figures 1 and 5 of
Storms, the combined radial height of the ring 35 and seal
element 25 is greater than the axial width of the seal element
25. Thus, the appellant's argument with regard to claim 10
does not persuade us of any error in the examiner's rejection.
With regard to claim 11, the appellant asserts (brief, p.
8) that claim 11 is not met by Storms. We do not agree. We
agree with the appellant that the radially extending end face
of Storms' seal element 25 does not extend the entire combined
radial height of the ring 35 and seal element 25. However, as
shown in Figures 1 and 5, the radially extending end face of
Storms' seal element 25 does extend the majority of the
combined radial height of the ring 35 and seal element 25.
Claim 11 is readable on Storms since claim 11 requires only
that the radially extending end face of the seal body extend
the entire or majority of the combined radial height of the
ring and seal body. Thus, the appellant's argument with
regard to claim 11 does not persuade us of any error in the
examiner's rejection.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007