Appeal No. 1998-2700
Application No. 08/722,452
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claim 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that we see
nothing indefinite about appellant’s use of the language in
claim 26 specifying that the "pointer is disposed on said
pinion." In this regard, we agree with appellant’s comments
and arguments found on pages 21 and 22 of the brief. While it
is true, as the examiner notes on pages 14 and 15 of the
answer, that the specification (page 6) indicates that the
pointer (56) seen in Figure 2 is provided on the sleeve (52),
we observe that the specification, at page 6, lines 1 and 2,
also indicates that "[t]he forward end of the sleeve 52 is
formed as a toothed pinion 54," thus making the pinion and the
sleeve part of the same component in appellant’s system. In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007