Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
Spinner's outer part is not "separable" from the other elements
of the assembled seal, it nevertheless is a "separate" element,
albeit connected to the other components, and "separate" does not
proscribe all connection with another element (see In re Ruegg,
426 F.2d 405, 408, 165 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1970)). Claim 11 does
not require that the sealing element removably fit in the gap
between the inner and outer parts.
Booth teaches making the inner part of a slightly greater
thickness than the outer part, so that upon tightening of the
flanges the electrical conductivity is improved (column 4, with
particular attention to lines 29 through 31). It is our opinion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to make inner part 10 of the Spinner sealing means of a slightly
greater thickness than outer part 13, so that the electrical
conduction through the joint is further enhanced. Booth also
teaches making the inner part of a more conductive material than
the outer part, to reduce cost (column 2, lines 38 through 54).
It is our view that it therefore also would have been obvious to
do the same with the Spinner device, as added by claim 15.
Suggestion for both of these modifications is found in the
explicit teachings of Booth. As for claim 16, from our
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007