Appeal No. 2001-1041 Page 8
Application No. 09/219,475
Specifically, the limitations including: The lower
rotary seal being located between the piston and a lower
portion of a stationary outer housing; a flow restriction
member being located between the rotatable inner housing,
and an upper portion of the stationary outer housing; as
well as the upper rotary seal being located between the
rotatable inner housing and the upper portion of the
stationary outer housing, were present in the claims of the
original application. The examiner's reasons for allowance
in the original application stated [quoted supra] that it
was those limitations which distinguished over a potential
combination of the prior art. Applicant did not present on
the record a counter statement or comment as to the
examiner's reasons for allowance, and permitted the claims
to issue. The omitted limitations are thus established as
relating to subject matter previously surrendered.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
December 27, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed
September 14, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed January
16, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
After reviewing the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellants’ briefs and in the examiner’s answer, we
conclude that the rejection is not well taken.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007