Appeal No. 2001-0151 Page 4
Application No. 08/850,981
The examiner has stated that it would have been obvious to modify the generally
flexible connecting portion of Hornberger to include a bellows-like portion to improve the
radial flexibility of the seal. However, in our view, Antonini would not suggest the
proposed modification of the examiner because that portion of the Antonini seal
between two contact portions 14 and 48 does not include bellows. Rather, Antonini’s
seal has bellows in an extended portion of the seal which extends in a radial direction
from the shaft. No such extended portion in the radial direction exists in the Hornberger
seal and as such we are at a loss to ascertain how the Hornberger seal can be modified
so as have a bellows portion as is taught by Antonini. In addition, even if the
Hornberger seal were modified so as to have a bellows portion, the Hornberger seal
does not have a second end that includes a contact surface that contacts a peripheral
surface of the shaft, as is recited in claim 1. Rather, the Hornberger seal contacts the
sleeve 8 rather than the shaft.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1 to 5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In addition, we will not sustain the remaining two
rejections as these rejections rely on the combination of Hornberger and Antonini and
the remaining references do not cure the deficiencies we have noted above in regard to
the combination of Hornberger and Antonini.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007