Ex Parte Warren et al - Page 10

                Appeal 2007-1266                                                                              
                Application 10/125,204                                                                        

                      The Examiner concedes that Schwarzkopf discloses the plug structure                     
                noted by Appellants, but points out that Schwarzkopf’s sealing ring further                   
                includes a second portion having a flat sealing surface with a diameter                       
                greater than the diameter of the cylindrical molding chamber.  (Answer 5).                    
                We are in agreement with the Examiner that the “rigid face seal”, as                          
                claimed, reads on this structure.  (See Findings of Fact 4 and 5).  As properly               
                noted by the Examiner, the claim language is broadly directed to “a rigid                     
                face seal ‘assembly.’”  See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d                      
                1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (In making a                              
                patentability determination, analysis must begin with the question, "what is                  
                the invention claimed?")  Thus, while the claims require a flat face seal with                
                a diameter greater than that of the sample molding chamber, the claims do                     
                not preclude the presence of an additional sealing structure which extends                    
                into the cylindrical molding chamber, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,                   
                44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(a reference is anticipatory within                      
                the meaning of § 102 if it discloses each and every claim limitation either                   
                expressly or inherently).1  Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of                  
                the claims as anticipated by Schwarzkopf.                                                     

                                                                                                             
                      1 We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that the surfaces                   
                relied on by the Examiner “are nothing more than surfaces which form stops                    
                for the internal seals within the walls of the chamber.”  (Reply Br. 3).  In our              
                view, Schwarzkopf’s disclosure that the rings 42, 38, and 34 provide a                        
                closed compression cavity 44 from which powdered metal 46 cannot escape                       
                indicates that the rings externally enclose and seal the molding chamber as                   
                recited in the claims.  See, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340                    
                F.3d 1314, 1325 n.6, 67 USPQ2d 1825, 1832 n.6 (Fed.Cir.2003)(“The                             
                anticipation analysis asks solely whether the prior art reference discloses and               
                                                     10                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013