Appeal No. 1998-2484 Page 15
Application No. 08/212,819
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.”
Add footnote re the alternative features of placement of
the grooves, openings in the flange or the spacer not in spec
(verify) but are in orig filed claims (verify). Cite MPEP re
need to put lang in claims in the description in the spec, and
cite rule 83 a as failing to fully illustrate the claims. Say
these are formal matters that can be addressed by the examiner
subseq to the appeal.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 2-6 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007