Appeal No. 2000-2016 Page 5
Application No. 09/209,837
Cir. 1983)). Thus, the fact that Soussloff discloses a different use for the disclosed
structure than the particular use mentioned by the appellant in the claim does not cause the
rejection to be defective on its face, which seems to be the essence of the appellant’s
argument (see Brief, page 5 and Reply Brief, pages 1-3). From our perspective, the
structure disclosed by Soussloff for use in attaching a machine element to a cylindrical
shaft in such a manner as to lock the two together not only meets all structural limitations
that are positively recited in the claim, but is capable of performing the use envisioned by
the appellant for the claimed structure.
Using the language of the claim as a guide, Soussloff discloses an adapter
comprising a cylindrical body (21) having a longitudinally oriented wall (25) bounding an
inner cylindrical bore of a diameter slightly oversized with respect to a specified outside
diameter of a cylindrical element so as to be adapted to receive in projected relation said
cylindrical element with said inner cylindrical bore as permitted by a fitting clearance
provided by the diameter size differences of the cylindrical element and the inner
cylindrical bore (see column 3, lines 24-29), in the cylindrical body of the adapter at select
circumferential locations are a cooperating pair of adjacent walls bounding therebetween
an open ended positioning slot (27) and having delimited by and between the slots
element-engaging legs (26), an externally threaded length portion (31) along the adapter
cylindrical body adjacent an end of each slot, and a hollow sleeve (22, 23) having an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007