Appeal No. 2006-0711
Application No. 10/407,020
The examiner finds, and appellants do not dispute, that the
only difference between the claimed sealing ring and the sealing
ring disclosed by vom Schemm is that this reference does not
disclose that the width of the profile at a region of the base is
greater than the total depth of the profile, as required by claim
1 on appeal (Answer, page 4; Brief, page 4). Therefore the
examiner applies von-Arndt for its teaching of a sealing ring
where the sealing disc has helical grooves with a trapezoidal
profile, further teaching a width 10 of the groove greater than
the depth 17 of the groove “to reduce friction” (Answer, page 4).
From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to make the width of the grooves greater
than the depth of the grooves in the sealing disc of vom Schemm,
as taught by von-Arndt to reduce friction (id.). We agree.
Appellants argue that the combination of von-Arndt and vom
Schemm does not teach or suggest a helical groove having the
features as recited in claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page 4).
Appellants argue that the specific helical groove geometry
recited in claim 1 provides for optimal conditions for the return
flow of medium through the helical groove at high rotating speeds
and during long operating periods so as to reduce carbon
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007