Appeal No. 1999-0644 Page 5
Application No. 08/459,460
and forming a seal gap therebetween to break down the pressure radially across
the seal ring member,
said seal ring member sealing face surface having an inner and an outer
edge thereon, one of said inner and outer edges of said sealing face surface
being exposed to the higher pressure region in said housing and the other of said
inner and outer edges of said sealing face surface being exposed to the lower
pressure region,
(b) at least one of said sealing face surface and said seal runner surface
being formed to converge toward the other along the gap in the direction from
said one edge of said sealing face surface toward said other edge thereof to
provide a converging flow path in said seal gap in the radial direction from said
one edge toward said other edge, and forming only a single sealing dam in said
seal gap,
said one converging surface being intentionally formed with a geometry
that converges sufficiently to deliberately create turbulent fluid flow and to have
a Reynolds number in excess of 1800 within and along said seal gap, whereby a
larger clearance between said sealing face surface and said seal runner surface is
thus created than would exist for laminar flow along said seal gap.
The basis of the examiner's rejection is that the subject matter of the italicized portions
of claims 5 and 12 as reproduced above is not supported by the appellant's original disclosure
in compliance with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 1l2. We initially observe that the description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 1l2 is separate from the enablement requirement of that provision. See Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007