Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
perspective the seal assemblies in both Spinner and Booth are of
such size as to occupy "substantially" the entire region between
the waveguide flanges.
A prima facie case of obviousness thus is established here,
and the rejection of claims 11, 15 and 16 as being unpatentable
over Spinner in view of Booth is sustained.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1 and therefore includes
all the limitations thereof, stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Spinner in view of Smith. This rejection also
will not be sustained because the Smith patent, cited for its
teaching of knurling the surfaces of the seal, does not alleviate
the shortcomings of Spinner regarding the separable and removable
features
of claim 1, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established.
Spinner in view of Booth and Domnikov form the basis of the
examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 13, both of which depend
from claims requiring the separable and removable features. As
explained above, neither Spinner nor Domnikov (here cited for
teaching the use of aluminum in seals) provide these required
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007