Appeal No. 97-0990 Page 10
Application No. 08/105,093
In summary, we see no motivation in the applied prior art of
why one skilled in the art would have modified the device of
Voitik to make the modifications necessary to arrive at the
claimed invention. Thus, the examiner has failed to meet the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. 3
Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed
independent claim 1, or claims 2 through 5 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.4
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 recite a seal assembly comprising, inter alia,
a seal housing, a carbon seal ring, means for urging the seal
ring, and a seal substantially as recited in claim 1.
We have reviewed all the references applied in the rejection
of claims 6 and 7 but find nothing therein which would have
suggested arranging the seal assembly of Smetana such that the
3Note In re Rijckaert, supra; In re Lintner, supra; and In
re Fine, supra.
4We have also reviewed the additional references applied in
the rejection of claims 3 through 5 but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiency of Voitik and Smetana discussed
above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007