Appeal No. 2001-2176
Application 09/031,186
portion of the supporting body. Moreover, the recitation in
question, whatever portion of the supporting body it refers to,
is inconsistent with the earlier recitation in the claim that the
sloped portion is “a sloped, radially outer portion” of the
supporting body. The latter recitation reads on the embodiment
shown in Figure 1, but not the embodiment shown in Figure 2 (in
Figure 2, the sloped portion cannot be accurately described as a
radially outer portion because it is disposed on the radially
inner periphery of the supporting body). In the Figure 1
embodiment, however, no portion of the supporting body which
contacts the sealing body faces toward the longitudinal axis of
the supporting body. Thus, read in light of the specification,
the limitations in claim 1 requiring the supporting body to have
both “a sloped radially outer portion” and a portion contacting
the sealing body which “faces toward the longitudinal axis of the
... supporting body” do not make sense.
Claim 6, which recites that “the sloped portion of the
supporting body is designed as an arch curved in the direction of
the sealing lip” presents a similar inconsistency with respect to
the recitation in parent claim 1 that the sloped portion of the
supporting body is “set at an angle with respect to the axis”
of the supporting body. The latter recitation reads on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007