Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 ii) Claims 28-31 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 102(b) as anticipated by Ruo, U.S. Patent 4,186,451 (“Ruo”).
3
4 iii) Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
5 as being unpatentable over Leaphart ‘753 in view of Schaefer,
6 U.S. Patent 4,813,343 (“Schaefer”).
7
8 iv) Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
9 as being unpatentable over Ruo and Schaefer.
10
11 v) Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
12 being unpatentable over Ruo and Phillips, U.S. Patent
13 6,719,134 (“Phillips”).
14
15 Leaphart and the Examiner generally disagree as to whether the prior
16 art describes a unidirectional seal. The Examiner relies upon Leaphart ‘753
17 and Ruo for their alleged description of a unidirectional seal for a plunger.
18 We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejections over Ruo and
19 Leaphart. Specifically, Ruo fails to describe a unidirectional seal and
20 Leaphart is not available as prior art under § 102(e). We likewise reverse
21 the obviousness rejection of claims 32 and 33 over Ruo and Schaefer as the
22 Examiner failed to demonstrate that the two references, alone or in
23 combination, teach or suggest a unidirectional seal.
24 We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 32 and 33
25 over Leaphart ‘753 in light of Schaefer as Leaphart ‘753 is available as prior
26 art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and describes a unidirectional seal.
27 We do not reach the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for claims 38-
28 40 over Ruo in light of Schaefer as Leaphart did not appeal this rejection.
29 The claims therefore remain stand rejected.
30
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013