Appeal No. 2004-0931
Application No. 10/180,355
center, and to a point beyond said center.” Similarly, claim 2
requires “a single continuous, concentric slot, the slot
extending orthogonal to said plane from a surface of the ring
through said center to a point beyond the center of the circle,”
and claim 3 requires “a concentric slot in the ring extending
from a surface of the ring through said center to a point past
said center; the slot having sides that are substantially
perpendicular to said plane.” The admitted prior art O-ring has
no such slot. To cure this deficiency, the examiner turns to
Chambers.
Chambers discloses an O-ring 46 made of Teflon (i.e.,
polytetrafluoroethylene) which is said to be superior in several
respects to O-rings made of relatively soft and readily
deformable rubber or rubber-like material (see columns 1 and 2).
As Teflon is substantially non-deformable, Chambers provides the
O-ring 46 with a circumferential slot 12a extending
perpendicularly to and beyond the central radial plane of the
ring (i.e., past the center of the ring’s circular cross-section)
to allow the ring to be radially deformed (see column 3, lines 64
through 71). This characteristic facilitates the placement of
the ring in a groove and/or about a shaft and enables it to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007