Appeal No. 1999-0644 Page 2
Application No. 08/459,460
claims filed September 15, 1997, after the final rejection, has been entered. However, the1
subsequent proposed amendment filed October 2, 1997 (Paper No. 14) has not been entered.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to seals for rotating shafts to restrict fluid flow between
rotating and stationary members and, more particularly, to a face seal which deliberately
induces turbulent flow along the seal gap (appellant's specification, page 1). An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 5 and 12, which are
reproduced in the opinion section of this decision.
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 2 and 4 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application
was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.2
1The examiner indicated in the advisory action mailed September 23, 1997 (Paper No. 12) that the
rejection of claims 2 and 4-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth in the final rejection (Paper No.
10) has been overcome by that amendment.
2Although the appellant's brief (page 2) cites enablement under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as an
additional issue in this appeal, the examiner has only rejected the claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey
to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention (final rejection, page 2, and answer, page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007