Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
in a manifold as a clearance take-up and thereby be associated with the tail once
the tail is inserted into the opening.
Appellant’s Arguments Raised in the Reply Brief:
Regarding claim 2, Appellant argues that element 26 in Smith is described as
an "annular or axial soft seal" whereas, seals in hydraulic couplings that engage the
male member about its circumference “‘generally resemble O-rings.’ {[Smith] col.
1; lines 26-32}” (Reply Br. 2). However, we interpret this reference to O-rings in
the Background of Smith to be simply another form of nomenclature for what is
later described in the Detailed Description as an annular seal 26 (Smith, col. 6, ll.
9-20) Further, Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1996) defines “O-
ring” as: a ring (as of synthetic rubber) used as a gasket. As found supra, Smith’s
element 26 meets this definition because: 1. it is annular (Smith, col. 6, l. 10) and
thus is a ring; 2. it is used for sealing, and thus is a gasket (Smith, col. 6, l. 10); and
3. it is made of synthetic elastomer or, synthetic rubber (Smith, col. 6, l. 16).
Appellant next argues concerning claim 3, that in Smith, “annular soft seals
26 and 27 are of a relatively pliable material, for example, rubber or synthetic
elastomer {col. 6; lines 14-16}” (Reply Br. 2). But this statement fails to advance
Appellant’s position in that it only restates exactly what Smith discloses, which is
that the annular seal 26 is made of natural or synthetic elastomer as required by the
claims (Smith, col. 6, l. 16).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013