Appeal No. 99-0214 Page 6
Application No. 08/372,126
feature of the appellant’s invention, it is our view that the
teachings of the reference fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 5. Moreover, the examiner has not pointed out, and we
fail to perceive on our own, any teaching, suggestion or
incentive which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Kondoh grooves so that this particular wall is
inclined at an angle of about fifteen degrees.
For the reasons set forth above, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 5 or claims 6-11, which depend therefrom.
The same rationale applies to independent claim 15, which
is directed to a seat for an elastic sealing ring and which
requires, inter alia, that the axial extent of the annular
groove in the seat be “approximately 20-30%” of the length the
internal lateral surface of the sealing ring. The
specification establishes that this is a critical value, for it
is a factor in making milling the groove very simple with a
minimum of material waste (page 2). Kondoh is silent here as
to the problem solved by this particular measurement, and
provides no hint as to the size relationship of the groove to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007