Appeal No. 2002-0500 Page 6
Application No. 09/258,320
discussed above for the same reasons as have been previously noted." (Id. at 11.)
Therefore, claims 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 32, 33, 36, and 37 stand or fall with representative
claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the two points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner finds, "Takahashi teaches a frame housing 10 with
an [sic] thrust supporter integral with the bottom face." (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 5.)
He explains, "[t]his limitation is CLEARLY shown in Takahashi figure 1 as the portion of
frame 10 under the thrust bearing element 20. This feature is identical to the
Applicant's [sic] disclosed thrust supporter 70 under the thrust bearing 7." (Id. at 8.)
The appellants argue, "the portion under the thrust bearing 20 is not a thrust supporter,
but forms part of the thrust bearing element holder 14, the thrust bearing element 20
clearly being the thrust supporter, i.e. the part responsible for supporting the thrust of
the shaft, and supporting the shaft." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007