Appeal No. 1999-1803
Application No. 08/968,845
See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37
CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the examiner cites Wisner as
teaching the claimed invention except for the use of an intermediate gasket with a plurality
of sealing ribs and the power cable sealingly engaging the fence to seal the cavity. Shevlin
is cited as teaching the use of an intermediate gasket with a sealing rib. Shelly is cited as
teaching a plurality of sealing ribs to further enhance the sealing function of a gasket. The
examiner asserts that “it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to
sealingly engage the power cable to the fence to seal the cavity to contain refrigerant in
case of terminal venting” [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that none of the applied prior art teaches the power cable
sealingly engaging the fence to seal the cavity defined by the fence as claimed.
Specifically, appellants argue that the passage in Wisner referred to by the examiner to
support this position does not do so. The passage in Wisner states that “external terminal
shield 20 covers hermetic terminal assembly 24 to contain refrigerant in the unlikely case
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007