Appeal No. 97-0990 Page 3
Application No. 08/105,093
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a reverse pressure
tolerant seal. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Meyer 3,003,796 Oct. 10, 1961
Andresen et al. 3,026,114 Mar. 20, 1962
(Andresen)
Voitik 3,416,808 Dec. 17, 1968
Lojkutz et al. 3,647,227 Mar. 7, 1972
(Lojkutz)
Pottharst, Jr. 3,652,183 Mar. 28, 1972
(Pottharst)
Nicholson 4,585,239 Apr. 29, 1986
Smetana 4,739,997 Apr. 26, 1988
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana as applied to claim 2
above, and further in view of Pottharst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007