Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 10
Application No. 08/705,744
the stationary seal component firmly to the housing 24.
Therefore, it is our opinion that Radosav does disclose a clip
as broadly claimed. In addition, there is also an axial
extension from the radial seal surface (which engages seal
component 40). We are not pursuaded by appellant’s argument
that Radosav does not disclose clip pins because claim 18 does
not recite a clip pin. Therefore, this argument is not
commensurated with the actual scope of claim 18.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Radosav. We will also sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claims 20, 23 through 25 and 27
as the appellant has not argued the separate patentability of
these claims. See Nielson 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528,
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20,
23 through 25 and 27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Duffee. It is the examiner’s opinion
that Duffee discloses the claimed invention as claimed and
that this is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007