Appeal No. 1998-2484 Page 14
Application No. 08/212,819
the flanges. We find that Figures 1 and 2 of JP’313 disclose4
a minute gap between the flanges which is filled by a liquid
gasket. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 2, we
find that JP’313 and Sweeny would not have suggested providing
the flanges of JP’313 with an annular groove and seal
outwardly of the flange-fastening-means on order to provide a
better seal between the flanges. As the area of JP’313
outward of the flange-fastening-means already having a liquid
sealant, we find no reason to have brazed the joint between
the flanges. In addition, as stated supra, with respect to
claim 2, a skilled artisan would not have been led to have
brazed an area containing a liquid gasket. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Turning to claim 5, as claim 5 depends from claim 2, and
Hama does not overcome the deficiencies of JP’313, Sweeny and
Bawa, the rejection of claim 5 is reversed.
4We refer to original figures 1 and 2 of JP’313 which is found on pages
50 and 51 of the document. These figures differ from amended Figures 1 and 2,
which appear on page 53 of the document.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007