Appeal 2007-1750
Application 11/057,917
addition to the segment. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that
Bonner has a segment (and also a groove) between the upsets 27 and 29.
The segment is the plain wall portion that does not have the groove. We
note that this segment does have substantially constant inner diameter.
Nothing in the claim requires the segment to extend completely from upset
to upset, and no language in the claim excludes the presence of a groove
juxtaposed between upsets 27 and 29. Therefore, we find the Appellants’
arguments regarding the construction of the phrase “separated by a segment
of the inner diameter” in claim 1 unpersuasive. We note that Appellants do
not separately argue any other claims in the Brief. Accordingly, we hold
that all of the claims fall with claim 1, and it is our finding that Bonner
anticipates the claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, it is our finding of fact that Bonner
anticipates claim 1 on appeal. Since all of the claims on appeal stand or fall
with claim 1, the rejection of the claims on appeal is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
vsh
HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES
23326 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, SUITE #200
TORRANCE CA 90505
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013