Appeal No. 1998-3314
Application 08/666,093
opening 32 in Cornell’s ball valve cannot be regarded as
forming a socket. As we noted on page 5 of our decision, the
word “socket” may mean “an opening into which an inserted part
is
designed to fit,” which, in our view, fairly describes the2
relationship between the upper end of Cornell’s arm 29 and the
opening 32 in the valve member 17.
Concerning (2), as we stated on page 6 of our decision,
we understood appellants’ argument that Cornell does not have
a shaft “removably received in said socket in mating relation”
as urging that Cornell does not disclose a shaft received in
mating relationship with the socket. Appellants have
sharpened their argument and now specifically argue that
Cornell’s arm is not “removable” because of the presence of
the pin 31. We have carefully reconsidered our decision in
light of appellants’ argument but continue in our belief that
the examiner did not err in rejecting claim 25 as being
2Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, The
Riverside Publishing Company, copyright © 1984 by Houghton
Mifflin Company.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007