Appeal No. 2000-0560
Application No. 08/578,636
provided with passages.
In contrast to the scope of the body of claim 9, the
preamble is directed to the seal arrangement per se. This is1
confirmed by the file record wherein appellant states that:
Applicant’s claim language has been further
clarified so as to recite a sealing arrangement per se
comprising a combination of features including “static
and dynamic seals being hydraulically activated by a
barrier liquid” (claim 9). The “inner and outer,
mutually rotatable swivel members”, the “ring element”
and the “fluid” being
transferred by the swivel members are part of the
environment in which Applicant’s sealing arrangement may
be used. As such, these elements provide a frame of
reference for describing the relationships between, and
the functions performed by, the features of Applicant’s
invention, and do not themselves form part of Applicant’s
invention. (Emphasis added)2
The scope of the body of claim 9 is therefore inconsistent
with the preamble, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Because of this inconsistency between the body and preamble,
it is unclear what elements of the swivel and sealing
arrangement are being claimed.
1Claim 9 recites “[a] sealing arrangement for a swivel . . .”
Appellant’s remarks filed March 23, 1998 (Paper No. 17, pages 4-5).2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007