Appeal No. 1998-3300
Application 08/722,907
Claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bross in view of Di Silvestro. On page 4 of the answer, the examiner has explained this rejection
thusly,
German Publication #1561812 [Bross] discloses substantially similar structure in Figure
4. Swiss Patent #612885 [Di Silvestro] shows the concave portion toward the tip in
Figure 7. It would have been obvious to a mechanic with ordinary skill in the art to
reverse the seal if so desired. The motivation is the known equivalence as shown in
Figures 6 and 7 of the Swiss Patent (Answer, page 4).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bross in view
of Di Silvestro as applied above, and further in view of Lai, Hoffman and Kroutl.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed June 3, 1998) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 9, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007