Appeal No. 99-0214 Page 2
Application No. 08/372,126
The appellant's invention is directed to the combination
of a seat for a sealing ring and a sealing ring seated in the
seat (claims 8-14), and to a seat for a sealing ring (claims
15-18). The claims on appeal have been reproduced in an
appendix to the Brief.
THE REFERENCE
Kondoh et al. (Kondoh) 4,776,768 Oct. 11,
1988
THE REJECTION
Claims 5-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kondoh.
The rejection is explained in Paper No. 17 (the final
rejection).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007