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. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007