Appeal No. 2006-0711
Application No. 10/407,020
von-Arndt et al. (von-Arndt) 5,507,505 Apr. 16, 1996
vom Schemm 5,615,894 Apr. 01, 1997
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over vom Schemm in view of von-Arndt (Answer, page
3). Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of the arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief, we
affirm the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated
in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that vom Schemm discloses a sealing ring
for sealing a shaft relative to an interior space, including a
supporting ring 6, a sealing disc 20 with a projection conically
deformed in an axial direction with a helical groove 30/34 on a
first section 25 in contact with shaft 22, where the helical
groove has a trapezoidal profile having a base, first and second
flank surfaces inclined toward one another, and is configured to
allow return of a medium toward the interior space (Answer, page
3).
3). Therefore we will not consider Hayashida and Johnen as evidence of obviousness. See In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970)(when a reference is relied
on to support a rejection, even in a minor capacity, there is no reason not to positively recite the
reference in the statement of rejection); see also Ex parte Raska, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1304-05 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007