Ex parte DOMINGUEZ - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 95-4860                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 08/044,923                                                                                                             


                          Claims 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                                                                      
                 paragraph.                                                                                                                             
                          Claims 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                                                                         
                 being anticipated by Grunsky.                                                                                                          
                          Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                      
                 being unpatentable over Grunsky.                                                                                                       
                          Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of Streich.                                                                                   
                          Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Streich and Leroy.                                                                         
                          The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-7 of                                                                       
                 the answer.                                                                                                                            
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          As a preliminary matter we base our understanding of the                                                                      
                 appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of                                                                           
                 the terminology appearing in independent claim 12.  In lines 9                                                                         
                 and 10  we interpret “means for expanding said expandable seal2                                                                                                                           
                 from said second end” to be -- means for expanding said                                                                                


                          2Reference in this opinion to specific lines in claims is                                                                     
                 with respect to the claims as they appear in the appendix to                                                                           
                 the appellant’s brief.                                                                                                                 
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007