Appeal No. 97-3210
Application No. 08/386,388
which is the case with Redder ring 34. However, claim 1
further requires that the secondary seal function to “prevent
entry of external pressure to the area encompassed by the
secondary seal between the first and second connection
members.” Notwithstanding the prior statement that this
functional language is of no consequence, the examiner
nevertheless expresses the opinion that “the seal [34] will
prevent entry of at least atmospheric pressure (an external
pressure)” (Answer, page 5). We agree with the appellant that
there is no evidence to support this conclusion, and it is
here that the Section 102 rejection based upon Redder fails.
Redder does not explicitly teach that seal 34 prevents
entry of external pressure and, in our view, to conclude that
such inherently is the case is speculative in view of the fact
such a function is not necessary to the operation of the
disclosed system, and the fact that the seal is designed to
prohibit the passage of lubricant, not gas. We also cannot
agree with the examiner that “atmospheric pressure”
constitutes “external pressure” in the context of the
appellant’s invention. All of the subject matter recited in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007