Ex Parte Kammerer et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0711                                                        
          Application No. 10/407,020                                                  

          where the sealing ring comprises a supporting ring, a sealing               
          disc attached to the supporting ring, the sealing disc including            
          a projection conically deformed in an axial direction of the                
          shaft, having a first section in contact with the shaft, and the            
          first section includes a helical groove having a base and a                 
          trapezoidal profile configured to allow return of a medium toward           
          the interior space, wherein the width of the profile is greater             
          than a total depth of the profile (Brief, page 2).                          
          Representative independent claim 1 is illustrative of the                   
          invention and is reproduced below:                                          
               1. A sealing ring for sealing a shaft relative to an                   
          interior space, the sealing ring comprising:                                
               a supporting ring; and                                                 
               a sealing disc attached to the supporting ring, the sealing            
          disc including a projection conically deformed in an axial                  
          direction of the shaft and having a first section in contact with           
          the shaft, the first section including a helical groove having a            
          base and a trapezoidal profile and configured to allow return of            
          a medium toward the interior space, wherein a width of the                  
          profile at a region of the base is greater than a total depth of            
          the profile.                                                                
               The examiner has relied upon the following references as               
          evidence of obviousness:2                                                   
               2The examiner discusses Hayashida, U.S. Patent No. 4,568,092, issued Feb. 4, 1986, and
          Johnen, DE 100 33 446 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002, as evidence of obviousness (Answer, page
          6) but fails to positively recite these references in the statement of the rejection (Answer, page
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007