Appeal No. 2005-0289 Page 7
Application No. 09/491,841
language of independent claims 1 and 13 to be definite. With
respect to dependent claim 8, argued by appellant, we reverse the
rejection of claim 8 based on our findings, supra, with respect
to independent claims 1 and 13. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7,
8, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22-26, 29, 30 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13,
14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Ellinwood. Appellant asserts (brief, page
14) that the sealing lips of subparagraph (b) are not found in
Ellinwood. Appellant asserts (brief, page 15) that the sealing
lips of the claimed invention seal against penetration of air and
moisture. Appellant notes (id.) that in Ellinwood, cushion 13
prevents displacement and dampening vibration of an air or fuel
conduit line. It is argued that in Ellinwood, there is no
disclosure of a seal against a conduit, and that the mere fact
that the edges are shown to project does not inherently suggest a
seal, since the cushion does not extend around the circumference
of the pipe (conduit) against which it is asserted to provide a
seal. It is further argued (brief, page 16) that “[f]urthermore,
the examiner has provided no reasonable basis in fact or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007