Appeal No. 97-2973
Application 08/316,147
annular portion c (see pages 5, 7 and 8 in the answer). Given
the broad scope of claims 1 through 6, the examiner’s position
here is well taken.
Dansi’s fly-wheel magneto e and the part of the hub in
contact therewith certainly constitute a plurality of adjacent
concentric rings having facing surfaces. Moreover, Dansi’s
annular part c clearly delineates a circumferential step on
the hub, i.e., either prismatic part a or prismatic part b,
and a cooperating circumferential step on the cast magneto,
i.e., either the magneto surface contacting hub part b or the
magneto surface contacting hub part a, respectively. It is
not evident, nor has the appellant cogently explained, why
either of these pairs of cooperating circumferential steps
fails to meet each and every circumferential step limitation
in claims 1 through 6. In this regard, the steps in each of
Dansi's pairs lie at opposite ends of the rings, extend about
50% of the length of the rings and cooperate to provide
contact between the rings when such are rotated at operating
speed.
Thus, the appellant’s contention that the subject matter
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007