Appeal No. 1999-0932
Application No. 08/723,889
The appellants have not separately argued the patentability of claims 11 and 15 apart7
from claims 9 and 14 from which they depend. Therefore, claim 11 shall stand or fall with
representative claim 9 and claim 15 shall stand or fall with representative claim 14.
We have carefully considered the appellants' arguments on pages 5-7 of the brief and in
the reply brief, but we do not find them persuasive. The fact that Suzuki describes the rotor as
comprising a central hub and an annular part including a pair of friction plates "directly
attached to the central hub" (column 3, lines 29-33), rather than as a hat (or raised central
portion) and a disk element, with the structure joining the hat and disk element being
considered a "junction," does not alter our conclusion that Suzuki anticipates the subject matter
of claims 1, 6-9, 11, 14, 15 and 17 in the manner discussed supra. A reference does not fail
as an anticipation merely because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the
appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607
(CCPA 1978). Just as the appellants are not precluded from characterizing the unitary rotor
structure disclosed in their specification as comprising a hat (or raised central portion), junction
and disk element, as recited in the claims, the unitary rotor structure disclosed by Suzuki can
also reasonably be considered to comprise a hat (or raised central portion), junction and disk
element.
7In claim 11, "said communication holes" (emphasis ours) lack clear antecedent basis. For purposes of our
review of this appeal, we interpret the "communication holes" as referring back to the "communication passages"
recited in claim 9. We leave this informality to be addressed by the examiner in the event of further prosecution.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007