Appeal No. 97-2546
Application 08/399,722
sleeve part (4) onto the core (10) without contacting the
relatively small protuberance (17) at all, and clearly could
be accomplished without forming an annular groove that is
complementary to the protuberance (17). For this reason the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 based on Takayanagi will not be sustained.
It follows from the foregoing that the § 102 rejection of
claims 3, 5, 7, 9 through 12 and 14 which depend from claim 34
will likewise not be sustained. As for claims 8 and 13, which
also depend from claim 34, we have reviewed the references to
Oikawa and Ono applied by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
however, we find nothing in these references which provides
for that which we have indicated above to be lacking in
Takayanagi. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejections of claims 8
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will also not be sustained.
Independent claim 35 differs from claim 34 in that it
does not include the recitations concerning the annular
protuberance and complementary annular groove. Thus,
appellant’s arguments concerning such elements of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007