Appeal No. 97-3210
Application No. 08/386,388
The examiner also has dismissed the functional
limitations regarding preventing leakage of internal or
external pressure as not being worthy of patentable weight
because they are not expressed in “means” format. We do not
agree, and we point out that these limitations set forth a
function which the reference apparatus must be structurally
capable of performing (see, e.g. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
959, 189 USPQ 149, 151-152 (CCPA 1976)), and such functional
statements must be given full weight and may not be
disregarded in evaluating the patentability of the claims
(see, e.g. Ex parte Bylund, 217 USPQ 492, 498 (Bd. App.
1981)).
Seal 34 is downstream of seal rings 19 and 20 insofar as
the flow of lubricant is concerned, and is mounted on the
rotating element. It is described as “resilient . . .
preferably made of a foamed plastics material,” and is
deformable under pressure to allow lubricant to pass through
into a gap between the rotating and stationary elements
(column 4, line 42 et seq.). Claim 1 requires that the
secondary seal deflect when subjected to internal pressure,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007