Appeal No. 2000-0210 Page 13
Application No. 08/893,906
settled that the disclosure should be regarded as
sufficient.
In our view, Paykin does not disclose incorporating an
anti-adhesive additive in the material forming his backup or
reinforcing ring 46. While Paykin does disclose that the
material forming his backup or reinforcing ring 46 does not
bond to the elastomeric material that the sealing ring 26 is
made of, this disclosure is insufficient to met the above-
quoted limitation of claim 9.3
Since all the limitations of claim 9 are not disclosed in
Paykin for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 6 to 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
3We note that a rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is not before us in this appeal.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007