Appeal 2007-1266
Application 10/125,204
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
III. Has the Examiner properly established that Schwarzkopf
discloses the claimed rigid face seal assembly?
Appellants contend that Schwarzkopf fails to anticipate the claims
because Schwarzkopf does not disclose a face seal having a diameter greater
than the diameter of the cylindrical sample molding chamber for externally
enclosing the chamber. Appellants assert that this structural limitation is
found in each of independent claims 1, 8, 13, and 18 as follows:
“a diameter greater than the diameter of said cylindrical sample
molding chamber for externally enclosing and sealing said opposite end of
said molding chamber” (Claim 1),
“a flat surface with a diameter greater than the diameter of said
cylindrical molding chamber, said seal positioned at an opposite end of said
chamber to engage only an outer surface of said opposite end of said
chamber” (Claim 8),
“a flat surface with a diameter greater than the diameter of said
cylindrical sample molding chamber” (Claim 13), and
“a flat surface with a diameter greater than the diameter of said
cylindrical molding chamber to selectively engage an outer surface of said
opposite end of said chamber to form an external seal at said opposite end”
(Claim 18). (Br. 11-12).
According to Appellants, Schwarzkopf’s chamber is sealed by means of a
plug structure which extends into the mold chamber, and, therefore, does not
anticipate the claimed face seal having a diameter which is greater than that
of the molding chamber. (Br. 10).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013