Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 7
Application No. 08/543,153
determining whether or not the ring 35 of Storms is capable of
urging the seal element 25 radially outwardly, we must
consider all the teachings of Storms, particularly the
teachings of Storms cited by the appellant in the reply brief
(pp. 3-5), and especially Storms' teaching (column 3, lines
54-58) that
[c]ontrary to most split rings used in conjunction with
seal elements, the restrainer ring does not operate as an
energizing member in that it does not urge the seal
element into sealing engagement through its own resilient
character to any great extent.
When considering all the teachings of Storms, we reach the
conclusion that to a small extent (i.e., not a great extent)
the ring 35 of Storms does urge the seal element 25 radially
outwardly. Thus, the appellant's argument with regard to
claim 14 does not persuade us of any error in the examiner's
rejection.
With regard to claim 7, the appellant argues (brief, pp.
7-8) that the combination recited in claim 7 is not disclosed
by Storms. We do not agree. We agree with the appellant that
Storms does not disclose the inner circumferential face of the
seal element 25 and the outer circumferential face of the ring
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007