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:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013