Appeal 2007-1266
Application 10/125,204
2. Claims 1-5, 8-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as indefinite.
3. Claims 1-5, 8-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Schwarzkopf.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner contends that the term “rigid” renders the appealed
claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Appellants
contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of
the term “rigid” given the materials of construction and operating pressures.
The issue before us is: Have Appellants shown that the Specification
provides an appropriate standard for determining the degree of rigidity
required for the face seal component?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
II. The Examiner contends that the “a rigid face seal” has not been
described in the Specification and, therefore, the claims are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Appellants contend that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the face seal was rigid
based on the description of materials of construction and operating pressures
of the claimed metallographic sample mounting press. The issue for us to
decide is: Have Appellants shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood from the Specification that Appellants were in possession
of a metallographic sample mounting press comprising a rigid face seal
assembly as now claimed?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013