Appeal No. 1999-0644 Page 3
Application No. 08/459,460
Reference is made to the main and reply briefs (Papers No. 18 and 22, respectively)
and the final rejection and answer (Papers No. 10 and 21, respectively) for the positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification, including the original claims as well as the amended claims, to the
declaration submitted with the reply brief and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have decided to sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The two independent claims 5 and 12 read as follows:3
5. A fluid seal assembly comprising a rotatable shaft having a radially
extending runner with a radially extending runner surface thereon,
a housing receiving said shaft and having walls thereon defining a
pressure chamber therein,
a seal ring having a pair of opposed radial surfaces thereon, said ring
receiving said shaft in the opening thereof and mounted in said housing in axial
floating relationship with said runner surface,
one of said seal ring radial surfaces being exposed during operation of
said assembly to the pressure in said chamber, the other of said seal ring radial
surfaces confronting said runner surface and being spaced therefrom when said
chamber is pressurized to form a seal gap therebetween,
3The italicized language was first introduced into the claims in the amendment filed April 9, 1997 (Paper
No. 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007