Appeal No. 2002-2092
Application 09/328,467
a lower portion (between reference character (44) and the thin
portion (46) of the gasket seen in Figures 3B and 4A) that
gradually increases in thickness toward the lower end (50), we
find no boundary between the cylindrical and thin portions of the
gasket in Passaniti which is “chamfered or curved” as required in
appellants’ claims 1 and 7 on appeal and as seen in Figures 13A
and 13B of the present application.
The examiner’s attempt to read the chamfered or curved
boundary of appellants’ claimed subject matter on the area “just
below the lead line for ‘44’” in Passaniti’s Figure 3B (answer,
page 6), is unavailing because that portion has already been read
by the examiner (answer, page 3) as corresponding to the
gradually thickening lower portion of the cylindrical hub portion
of the gasket, and thus cannot also serve as the chamfered or
curved boundary set forth in appellants’ claimed gasket as
defined in claims 1 and 7 on appeal. As a further point, we find
the examiner’s handling of claims 2 through 4 and 8 through 10 in
the answer (page 4) to be specious and without foundation in the
applied references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007