Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
that seal 66 in Handfield corresponds to the sliding seal
claimed, whereas
O-ring 64 corresponds to the flexible seal. Turning to the
flexible seal as claimed in claim 12, we note that the
flexible seal is required to be "connected at one end to said
piston and at the other end to said housing." As disclosed in
Handfield, it is clear that seal 64 slides to and fro on
piston 56 and can in no manner be considered to be connected
thereto. The examiner argues that there is no precise
definition of "what constitutes a 'connection'" and the words
of the claim should be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. While we agree that the claim terms should be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, it is clear
that seal 64 can in no manner be considered "connected" to
piston 56. They are simply two separate members, one moving
on the other.
Accordingly, it is our finding that Handfield does not
disclose a flexible seal between the sliding seal and the
reciprocating means. Therefore, Handfield does not disclose
each and every element as set forth in the claim. The
rejection of claim 12 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007