Appeal No. 2006-2450
Application No. 10/211,828
of the first and second rings shoulders with a seal between as disclosed by Rogers would
more accurately hold the seal of Smith in place.”
We disagree with the examiner’s reasoning. Independent claim 1 recites “a seal
retainer insertable into the receiving chamber; the seal retainer having a first inner ring
and a second outer ring concentric with the first inner ring; at least part of the first inner
ring fitting radially inside the second outer ring in an engaged position; the first inner
ring having a first end abutting the internal shoulder in the receiving chamber; at least
part of the second outer ring having an externally threaded area to engage the female
member.” Independent claim 10 recites “at least part of the first inner ring held radially
inside the second outer ring; part of the second ring having external threads to engage the
receiving chamber.” Independent claim 17 recites “a first inner ring removably inserted
through at least part of a concentric second outer ring … the second outer ring having …
and a threaded area for engaging the female member.” Thus, each of the independent
claims recites two rings within the female body, where one ring is insertable and
concentric to the other ring.
Smith teaches a hydraulic coupling with a female body, item 60, which contains
two rings (item 30 and item 50) with two ring seals (items 40 and 61). The outer of the
two rings, item 30 has threads which thread into the female member. Smith does not
teach that the rings are arranged such that a first inner ring fits radially inside the second
outer ring as claimed in claim 1.
Rogers teaches a fluid coupling, with a female member (item 33) with a ring (item
34) around an outer shoulder of the female member which holds the seal (item 38). We
do not find that Rogers teaches two rings and a female member, rather Rogers teaches
that the female member has a shoulder which fits inside and is concentric to the one ring.
This arrangement of female member and ring holds the seal.
It is the burden of the examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by the implication contained in such teachings or suggestions.
In re Sernaker 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “The motivation,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007