Appeal No. 2006-0711
Application No. 10/407,020
grooves 9, 10 of different profiles” (col. 3, l. 67-col. 4, l.
2). Accordingly, we determine that the teachings of vom Schemm
alone suggest the optimization of the groove profile geometry
depending on the purpose of the application of the shaft seal
ring. We note that appellants have not submitted any arguments
or evidence showing unexpected results.
Appellants argue that von-Arndt describes a seal for a
piston or rod that moves back and forth in an axial direction of
the shaft without rotating, and fails to describe a sealing ring
having a “sealing disc” (Brief, page 4; Reply Brief, page 2).
Appellants further argue that it is not obvious to combine the
references as proposed by the examiner, since the geometry of the
grooves taught by von-Arndt is for a different purpose than vom
Schemm and there is no motivation to provide the teaching of the
groove profile of external grooves of a reciprocating rod or
piston as in von-Arndt with the internal grooves of the rotary
shaft seal of vom Schemm (Brief, pages 5-6; Reply Brief, pages 3-
4).
These arguments are also not persuasive. Although vom
Schemm and von-Arndt are arguably not directed to the same field
of endeavor, the combination of references is still proper if
they are both directed to the same problem facing appellants,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007