Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
the art is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims based on McEwen,
McFarland and Olsson.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of McEwen,
McFarland,
Olsson, and O'Donnell. The examiner considers O'Donnell as
teaching the "continuously curved" and "non-edge bearing"
language of independent claim 1 and concludes, that in any
event, the feature is old and well known (answer, page 5).
Our review of O'Donnell reveals that the centerline of
the tubing section of O'Donnell's pipe (1) immediately below
the annular depression or seal seat (6) is straight, not
curved. Thus, O'Donnell does not cure the deficiency in the
McEwen-McFarland-Olsson combination that we discussed, supra.
With regard to the examiner's assertion that the
"continuously curved" and "non-edge bearing" language is old
and well known, we note that the assertion has been timely
challenged by appellant and the examiner has provided no
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007