Appeal 2007-1266
Application 10/125,204
5) Schwarzkopf’s Figure 1 shows a conventional hydraulic
press 12 having an upper vertically aligned ram 14 and a lower
vertically aligned ram 16. A removable mold 18 is positioned
between the two rams 14 and 16 within a metal enclosure 20 which
is made of steel. The upper ram 14 is movable downward to apply
pressure to hold the mold 18 together during isostatic compaction
and the lower ram 16 is movable upward to push the removable
mold 18 out of the metal enclosure 20 after isostatic compaction.
(Schwarzkopf, col. 2, ll. 32-40). The top ring 42 and sealing ring
34 position the character sleeve 40 within the support ring 38. The
rings 42, 38, and 34 have an interleaving construction to provide a
closed compression cavity 44 from which powdered metal 46
cannot escape during isostatic compression. The rings 42, 38, and
34 can be made of standard 4340 steel. (Schwarzkopf, col. 2, ll.
62-68).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Have Appellants shown that the Specification provides an
appropriate standard for determining the degree of rigidity required for the
face seal component?
The Examiner contends that the appealed claims are indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because “rigid” is a term of degree and
the Specification does not provide a standard by which this may be
determined. (Answer 3). The relevant inquiry under § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claims delineate to a skilled artisan the bounds of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013