Ex Parte Torres et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2006-1326                                                                              
                Application 09/919,326                                                                        

                order to satisfy these claim terms.1  We will use this interpretation in our                  
                analysis below.                                                                               
                      Hayashi discloses a rubber plug 3 that functions in the same manner                     
                as Appellants’ high pressure sealing assembly 40.  Namely, Hayashi’s                          
                rubber plug 3 has an outer cylinder (16 or 16a) which deforms upon                            
                insertion into sealing cylinder 1 (Hayashi, col. 4, ll. 30-40, 53-55; col. 5, ll.             
                3-13; Figure 1; Figure 2).  Hayashi further discloses that outer cylinder 16                  
                “. . . is kept pressed against the edge 1a of the opening being fully in close                
                contact with the latter” (Hayashi, col. 4, ll. 53-55).  Moreover, with regard to              
                the Figure 2 embodiment, Hayashi discloses that the outer cylinder 16a “is                    
                so formed that its outer cylindrical surface is suitably pressed against the                  
                inner cylindrical surface of the seal cylinder 1” (Hayashi, col. 5, ll. 11-13).               
                Both of these disclosures indicate that a seal is formed between the sealing                  
                surface of the outer cylinder 16 or 16a and the interior of the cavity.                       
                      From the foregoing, Hayashi discloses a sealing surface (i.e., the outer                
                surface of outer cylinder 16 or 16a) and a “skirt” (i.e., outer cylinder 16 or                
                16a) that satisfy Appellants’ claimed function of forming a seal with the                     
                interior of the cavity by undergoing a “small amount” of deformation.                         
                Therefore, Hayashi discloses Appellants’ only argued distinctions of a                        
                sealing surface having “substantially the same shape as the interior of the                   
                cavity prior to insertion” and a skirt that deforms a “small amount.”                         
                                                                                                             
                1 If Appellants do not agree with our claim interpretation, then the Examiner                 
                should consider making a 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, rejection in any                     
                further prosecution that may occur as Appellants have not provided any                        
                guidance as to the meaning of these claim terms.  Seattle Box Co., Inc. v.                    
                Indus. Crating and Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826,                                          
                221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                        
                                                      7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013