Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 6
Application No. 08/543,153
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)); however, the law of anticipation does not require
that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but
only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed
in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-8, and reply brief,
pp. 1-5) that certain features of claims 14, 7, 10 and 11 were
not disclosed in Storms. We do not agree.
With regard to claim 14, the appellant argues (brief, pp.
6-7, and reply brief, pp. 1-5) that the recited
resilient ring member means located in abutment with the
inner axially extending circumferential face of the seal
body for urging said outer circumferential face radially
outward sufficiently to maintain sealing abutment between
said outer circumferential face and the bore
is not disclosed by Storms. Specifically, the appellant
points out that the ring 35 of Storms is incapable of urging
the seal element 25 radially outwardly. We disagree. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007