Appeal No. 97-0990 Page 9
Application No. 08/105,093
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 3-7) that the above-noted
combination of Voitik and Smetana does not meet the requirements
of appealed claim 1. Specifically, the appellants argue that the
specifically claimed orientation of the first seal element and
the second seal element means is not suggested or taught by the
applied prior art. We agree.
It is our opinion that while the combined teachings of
Voitik and Smetana would have suggested substituting the seal
assembly (i.e., seal 18 as shown in Figure 4) of Smetana for the
o-ring seal 22 of Voitik, there is no teaching or suggestion,
absent impermissible hindsight, to arrange the seal assembly of
Smetana such that the base portion 28, rather than the legs 24
and 26, thereof is adjacent retainer 34 of Voitik. It is our
view that since Voitik is concerned with restricting fluid
leakage in the direction of the arrow 11 one skilled in the art
would have arranged the seal assembly of Smetana such that the
legs 24 and 26, not the base portion 28, thereof was adjacent
retainer 34 of Voitik so that the pressure within Voitik's
opening 12 would act to bias the legs 24 and 26 of Smetana's seal
assembly away from one another as taught by Smetana.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007