Appeal No. 1999-0525
Application 08/590,859
determinations which follow.
We reverse the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellants’ claims. As explained below, we are constrained to
reverse these rejections since the applied evidence does not
support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants’ sole independent claim 1 is drawn to a
sealing arrangement comprising, inter alia, a sealing ring
comprising a support ring, a first sealing element, a second
sealing element, and a multipole ring, with the first and
second sealing elements each comprising an elastomeric
material and the multipole ring comprising a magnetizable
material, and with “said sealing element and said multipole
ring being constructed integrally and continuously with one
another and being made of a uniform material.”
Read in light of the underlying written description in
the specification and the showing in the drawing, it is clear
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007