Appeal No. 1999-1785
Application No. 08/512,656
the recess or “seat” which receives seals 104. Therefore,
because Totten shows a “seat” as broadly claimed and discloses
each and every element of claim 11, we will thus sustain the
examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
In looking at the examiner’s rejection of Claim 12 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated
by Totten, we see that dependent claim 12 expressly requires
that the external member define at least one groove for
receiving the seal member. The appellant’s argument that
“[n]o such groove between an external member and an internal
member appears in Totten” (brief, page 7) is not understood
and would seem to be directly in conflict with appellant’s
argument (brief, page 6) regarding Totten and its use against
independent claim 11 on appeal. As we stated above, Totten
clearly shows grooves 166, 168 in external member 92 for
receiving seal member 104. Thus, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Totten.
We turn to the rejection based on Totten under 35 U.S.C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007