Appeal No. 2001-0151 Page 2
Application No. 08/850,981
The appellants’ invention relates to an arrangement for sealing an interface
between a rotating shaft and a stationary housing (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hornberger 4,721,312 Jan. 26, 1988
Antonini et al. (Antonini) 4,844,484 July 4, 1989
Heinzen 5,201,529 Apr. 13, 1993
Katzensteiner 5,211,406 May 18, 1993
The rejections
Claims 1 to 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hornberger in view of Antonini.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hornberger in view of Antonini and further in view of Heinzen
Claims 8, 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hornberger in view of Antonini and further in view of Katzensteiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed April 8, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
November 4, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007