Appeal No. 1999-0519
Application 08/728,224
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respec-
tive positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims
4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that
the examiner has taken the position that the recitation in
each of these claims that the mass added to the shaft at the
second order critical frequency node comprises “a bearing
assembly” is indefinite because “merely naming mass as a
bearing assembly
fails to further define the claimed structure” (answer, page
3). The examiner goes on to indicate that if appellant wishes
to claim the bearing structure then the specific element or
elements that constitute the bearing structure should be
positively set forth. We do not agree. Like appellant, we
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007