Appeal No. 97-3210
Application No. 08/386,388
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief. As a result of our review, we have determined that
neither of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning
in support of this conclusion follows.
Both of the rejections are under Section 102. It is
axiomatic that anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468
U.S. 1228 (1984).
The sealing system to which the appellant’s claims are
directed is for the purpose of providing a seal between a pair
of circular contact surfaces on first and second connection
members. Claim 1 recites a generally ring-shaped primary seal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007