Appeal 2007-4073
Application 10/739,417
1 Ruo issued on February 5, 1980 and Schaefer issued on March 21,
2 1989. Both Ruo and Schaefer are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
3 § 102(b).
4 Leaphart ‘417 claims benefit of the effective filing date of the
5 application that issued as the ‘753 patent. The claims on appeal are entitled
6 to the earlier filing date to the extent they are described and enabled by the
7 earlier filed ‘753 specification. Claims are not entitled to the benefit of the
8 earlier filing date of the ‘753 specification to the extent they are not describe
9 or enabled by the earlier specification. As such, Leaphart ‘753 is not
10 available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) but is available under
11 35 U.S.C. § 103.3
12
13 Construction for the term “Unidirectional Seal”
14 Leaphart’s Appeal Brief states that the term “unidirectional seal” has a
15 clear meaning in light of the specification. (Br. 4). Specifically, Leaphart
16 states that one of ordinary skill in the art reading paragraph 88 of the ‘417
17 specification would be led to “an immediate and clear understanding of the
18 unidirectional seal.” (Id.). The specification at paragraph 88 identifies the
19 unidirectional seal as secured in the upper barrel and abuts a disk that is
20 situated between the unidirectional seal and the upper barrel. The
21 unidirectional seal engages the interior wall of the lower barrel and is
22 sufficiently pliable to flex and disengage the inner wall of the lower barrel
23 when the upper barrel is drawn away from the lower barrel. (‘417
24 Specification, ¶ 88). Based upon the teachings of the specification, the
3 Leaphart’s Appeal Brief did not provide 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) evidence that
disqualifies Leaphart ‘753 from being applied under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013