Appeal No. 98-2150
Application No. 08/539,926
15e) extends closer to the centerline 26 of the wellhead
housing than any opposing structure on the wellhead housing,
thus generating a moment in the secondary sealing ring 15. In
Szymczak, however, the respective opposing structures extend
the same distance from the centerline of the wellhead housing.
This being the case, the examiner has not provided a
reasonable basis for concluding that a moment is generated in
Szymczak's seal ring. Inherency may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d
578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) and In re Rijckaert, 9
F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Szymczak.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1, 17 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007