Appeal No. 2001-2072
Application 08/910,885
mating flanges 86 and 87 of the filter housing, enhancing the
seal in that area. Figure 4 also illustrates upper radial seal
50 wherein the seal comprises an axially extending flexible
flange 100 of a suitable elastomeric material. The radial seal
50 preferably has a rounded or beveled nose 101 to facilitate
insertion of the filter into the end cap and a substantially flat
sealing surface 102. Resilient flange 100 of the radial seal 50
which is pressed against flange 103 of the filter housing.
From the illustration of Figure 4, we find that sealing
flange 100 has a sealing surface 102 that has a diameter that is
closely dimensioned to the outer diameter of the sealing surface
of metal flange 103 of the filter housing. In this way,
therefore, appellants’ filter cartridge is described in terms of
the structure imposed upon it by the filter housing. Therefore,
pursuant the holding in In re Stencel, we disagree with the
examiner’s position that this aspect of appellants’ claim carries
no patentable weight. Pursuant In re Stencel, appellants are not
barred from describing the filter cartridge in terms of the
structure imposed upon it by the filter housing.
While the examiner argues that the sealing surface of
Hockett “is obviously capable of being pressed radically inward
toward the axis into a sealing relationship against an axially
extending seating surface ….” (answer, page 5), he has not
adequately established on this record that Hockett’s sealing
surface would necessarily “be pressed radially inward toward the
axis into a sealing relationship” against an axially extending
seating surface of a housing.
The secondary references of Barrington, Caserta, and
Erdmannsdoerfer do not cure the deficiencies of Hockett.
We therefore reverse each of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007