Appeal 2007-4073 Application 10/739,417 1 ISSUE 2 The issue is whether Leaphart has shown that the Examiner erred in 3 rejecting the claims. Specifically, the issues are: 4 Is Leaphart ‘753 available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) 5 as to Leaphart ‘417 claims that are fully described and enabled 6 by Leaphart’s earlier ‘753 patent? 7 8 Has Leaphart demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding 9 that Ruo describes a unidirectional seal? 10 11 FINDINGS OF FACT 12 A. Leaphart’s ‘417 Specification 13 1) Leaphart’s claims on appeal are directed to an air plunger having a 14 first and second barrel where a unidirectional seal slidably engages the first 15 barrel. (Br., Independent Claim 28). 16 17 2) Leaphart ‘417 depicts a plunger with a unidirectional seal as follows: 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013