Appeal No. 99-0214 Page 7
Application No. 08/372,126
the length of the sealing ring in the patented invention, and
therefore one is left only to analyze the showing in the
drawing. We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant
that even considering the drawings in the most favorable light,
the axial extent of the each of the grooves does not comply
with the terms of the claim. In this regard, we note that the
common meaning of “approximately” is “to come near,” which in 2
our view is not the case with regard to the axial extent of the
Kondoh groove.
Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness also is not
established with respect to the subject matter of independent
claim 15 or of claims dependent claim 16-18. The rejection of
claims 15-18 is not sustained.
We reach the opposite conclusion with regard to
independent claim 12, however. This claim contains neither of
the numerical limitations discussed above, and the point at
issue is the requirement “said inclined side [24] smoothly
transitioning to said internal lateral surface [5].” The
appellant has not explained where in the specification guidance
2See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 58.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007