Appeal No. 1999-1756
Application No. 08/499,100
being useful for preventing leakage in many directions of
movement. In each of the applications of brush seals
discussed by Beeman, the parts to be sealed move relative to
one another along or about a single axis only. Accordingly,
it is not apparent to us, without the benefit of appellants'
disclosure, what in the teachings of Beeman would have led one
skilled in the art to use brush seals in the multi-
directional, multi-axial application of Herrick's nozzle.
In light of the above, we find ourselves in agreement
with appellants that the combined teachings of Herrick and
Beeman are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the modification proposed by the examiner to
arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claim 2 which depends from
claim 1, as being unpatentable over Herrick in view of Beeman.
The deficiency in the combination of Herrick and Beeman
with respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1 finds no
cure in the Bachovchin and Silverwater patents applied to
support the obviousness rejections of claims 2-6 which depend
from claim 1. Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 2-5 as being unpatentable over
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007