Appeal No. 99-0214 Page 5
Application No. 08/372,126
into place, whereupon a sharp edge (294) in each groove engages
the a bulge in the sealing ring to hold it in position. Each
of Kondoh’s grooves has a first surface perpendicular to the
seat defining surface and a second surface that appears from
the drawing to be at about a 45 degree angle thereto, although
no specific information on this point is set forth in the
written description. Nor is information provided regarding the
length or depth of the grooves.
We agree with the examiner that all of the subject matter
recited in claim 5 is disclosed by Kondoh, except for the
requirement that the inclined groove wall be at an angle of
“about” fifteen degrees. However, we do not agree with the
examiner that “this is a mere difference in degree from that
shown by Kondoh and, therefore, would have been obvious” (Paper
No. 17, page 2). Our conclusion is grounded in the fact that
the appellant has established in the specification that this
limitation is critical in that it “provides the least possible
resistance” to pressing the sealing ring into place.
Considering that the angle of the comparable groove wall in
Kondoh appears to be about three times the claimed value, and
that Kondoh evidences no concern for the problem solved by this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007