Appeal No. 1999-2245
Application No. 08/705,388
particular environment and disagrees with the examiner’s
indication that the preamble merely addresses an intended use,
submitting that the claimed seal comprises a flange “attached”
to one of the spools within a turbine (brief, page 4). From
our perspective, when each of the claims is viewed as a whole,
i.e., the language of the preamble and body are considered
together, it is clear to us that each of these claims is
definite in being drawn to a seal structurally connected to
coaxial first and second turbine spools that are rotatable
about an axis (combination). Our opinion in this matter
appears to us to be consistent with the view of appellant,
discussed above, to the effect that a seal per se in not being
claimed.
The examiner views the term “canted” in claims 11 and 12
as vague and indefinite. We disagree. On pages 3 (line 28)
and 4 (line 19) of the underlying specification, we are
informed that the catch surface is "canted." The word
"canted" is fairly assessed as denoting an oblique, slanted or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007