Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
piston which has both a sliding seal to prevent fluid leakage
and a flexible seal to isolate the fluid chamber from the
environment and prevent bacterial contamination. The claimed
invention may be further understood by reference to appealed
claim 12 which is appended to the examiner's answer.
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation is:
Handfield 4,730,991 Mar. 15,
1988
REJECTION
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Handfield. It is the examiner's finding that
O-ring seal 66 anticipates appellant's claimed sliding seal,
while O-ring seal 64 anticipates appellant's claimed flexible
seal. Consequently, the examiner is of the opinion that
Handfield anticipates the claimed subject matter of appealed
claim 12.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the factual finding
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007