Appeal 2006-1326
Application 09/919,326
substantially the same shape as the interior surface of the cavity prior to
insertion into the cavity” (Br. 8). Appellants further argue, with regard to
the method claims, that since Hayashi discloses that R2 (i.e., the outside
diameter of the rear end of outer cylinder 16) is “much larger” than R1 (i.e.,
the inside diameter of seal cylinder 1) in the Figure 1 embodiment,
Hayashi’s sealing surface (i.e., the outer surface of outer cylinder 16) cannot
be “substantially the same shape as the interior surface of the cavity” (Br. 9).
The Examiner responds that the recitation of “for sealing a cavity” in
the device claims is “considered as the intended use of the device” (Answer
5). The Examiner indicates that Appellants do not “positively claim the
internal cavity” such that the “manner in which an apparatus is intended to
be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed
apparatus, which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the
structural limitations of the claim” (Answer 5). The Examiner also states
that Hayashi’s rubber plug 3 is used to seal a cavity of a seal cylinder (1)
such that the sealing surface of Hayashi’s rubber plug 3 has “. . .
substantially the same shape as the interior surface of the cavity . . .”
(Answer 5-6).
Regarding the method claims, the Examiner contends that when the
claimed method is practiced, Hayashi’s device functions in the same manner
as Appellants’ device (Answer 6-8). Namely, both Hayashi’s rubber plug 3
and Appellants’ high pressure sealing assembly 40 function by having their
respective sealing surface deform slightly to provide a seal (Answer 6-8).
The Examiner further notes that Appellants failed to define in their
Specification what amount of deformation constitutes a “small amount”
(Answer 8). Based on Appellants’ failure to define the term “small” the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013