Appeal No. 1999-0644 Page 8
Application No. 08/459,460
Therefore, while we have considered the appellant's argument that "it is clear that one
skilled in the art of seal design at the time of Appellant's filing date would know that the
location of the converging member could be on either the seal runner or the seal ring" (brief,
page 5) and the McNickle declaration submitted with the reply brief, they are not relevant to
the issue before us. Quite simply, the appellant's original disclosure provides no indication that
the appellant contemplated the converging shape being disposed on any surface other than the
seal ring surface so as to convey to those skilled in the art that the appellant was in possession
of the invention as now claimed.
For the reason discussed above, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2
and 4 through 12 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 4 through 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007