Appeal No. 1998-2484 Page 11
Application No. 08/212,819
inner edges of the flanges 3 would have provided better
seating for the brazen sealing material that would a
circumferential v-shaped notch between the flanges. We find
that Sweeny suggests connecting the flanges with sealing means
both inward and outward of the bolts. We further find that
providing the bolts with both inner and outer annular seals
between the flanges would have provided a better seal than
simply providing an annular seal inward of the bolts.
The appellants additionally assert (brief, page 8) that
the brazed seal 23 of Sweeny is not identical to or an
equivalent to the disclosed o-ring 5, and under 35 U.S.C. §
112, sixth paragraph, the “brazed seal 23 is not within the
scope of the sealing means recited in claim 2.” We find that
claim 2 recites “sealing means.” We note that the appellants’
specification to an o-ring seal or even a flexible seal as
advanced by the appellants. We find that the specification
(page 2) states “such as an 0-ring. In addition, appellants’
brief (page 8) states that the o-ring is a “preferred
example.” We therefore find that the language of the
specification would include as equivalents other types of
metal-to-metal seals, such as the brazing of Sweeny.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007