Appeal No. 2001-2072
Application 08/910,885
Claim 8 stands rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,685,985 in
view of Barrington and further in view of Caserta.
Claim 9 stands rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,685,985 in
view of Barrington and further in view of Covington.
On page 2 of the Brief, appellants indicate that they focus
on the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the sole independent
claim, to narrow the issues on this appeal. Appellants state
that they do not address the other obviousness rejections
involving the dependent claims. Appellants state that if the
rejection of claim 1 is obviated, there is no need to address
these other obviousness rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse each of the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. However, because appellants have not
argued against each of the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting rejections, and have not
submitted a terminal disclaimer as suggested by the examiner
(answer, page 2), we sustain each of these rejections, pro forma.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
On page 11 of the answer, the examiner acknowledges that
Hockett fails to teach the functional limitations of gasket seal
16 (shown in Figure 4 of Hockett) as forming a radial seal
against an axially extending ring shaped seating surface of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007