Appeal No. 1998-3314
Application 08/666,093
Regarding (3), we are unable to agree with appellants
that the reception of the upper end of Cornell’s arm 29 in the
opening 32 in the valve member is not in the nature of a
“mating relation.” In this regard, we note that the dimension
of the opening in the valve member and the dimension of the
arm 29 closely conform to one another, as least as shown in
Cornell’s Figure 4.
With respect to (4), appellants are simply wrong that “by
express wording, the shaft is to rotate the ball valve with
rotation of the shaft,” or that “there is an express
recitation
that it is the shaft which rotates and, in so doing, rotates
the ball valve” (request for rehearing, page 3; emphasis
added). An inspection of the actual claim language in
question reveals that there is no such requirement, either
express or implied, that the shaft rotates. Moreover, for the
reasons explained on pages 5 and 6 of our decision, we do not
agree with appellants that our broader interpretation of the
language appearing in the last paragraph of claim 25
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007