Appeal No. 2004-0931
Application No. 10/180,355
b) a single continuous, concentric slot, the slot extending
at right angles to the plane from a surface of the annulus,
through said center, and to a point beyond said center.
THE PRIOR ART
The items relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Chambers, Jr. et al. 2,729,478 Jan. 03, 1956
(Chambers)
The prior art O-ring illustrated in Figure 3 and described in the
specification of the instant application (the admitted prior art)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Chambers.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 13) and answer
(Paper No. 14) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
The admitted prior art encompasses a deformable O-ring of
elastomeric rubber or rubber-like material. This O-ring meets
all of the limitations in claims 1 through 3 except for those
relating to the slot. As indicated above, claim 1 requires “a
single continuous, concentric slot, the slot extending at right
angles to the plane from a surface of the annulus, through said
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007