Appeal No. 2002-0612
Application No. 09/254,631
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the standing
§ 103 rejection of claim 17, or claims 20, 21, 23, 31-33 and 37
that depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Arnold in view
of Pierce.
II. The § 103 rejection based on Arnold, Pierce and Lee.
Lee pertains to an expansion sealing device. In Lee, an
expansion sleeve 12 having a cylindrical outer surface and an
axially tapered inner surface is positioned in the flow passage
of a housing. Thereafter, a frusto-conical inner member 14
having a greater average diameter is placed inside the sleeve 12
such that relative movement therebetween causes the sleeve to
expand so that its cylindrical outer surface engages the inner
surface of the flow passage to form a tight seal therebetween.
In our view, Lee does not make up for the deficiencies of
Arnold and Pierce discussed above. In particular, we do not
consider that it would have been obvious to utilize the end faces
of the unnumbered element of Arnold as sealing surfaces in view
of Lee, notwithstanding the examiner’s apparent view (see page 10
of the answer) that in Lee end face 18 of inner member 14 and/or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007