Appeal No. 1998-3314
Application 08/666,093
examiner’s final rejection of claims 25 and 26.
Appellants contend that we “misapprehended or overlooked
the definitive recitations of claim 25 and [have]
misinterpreted the language of claim 25 in affirming the
rejection of claim 25 as being anticipated by Cornell”
(request, page 1). Specifically, appellants contend that
Cornell does not anticipate claim 25 because (1) the opening
32 of the ball valve of Cornell is, by definition, not a
“socket” as claimed, (2) claim 25 requires that the shaft is
removably received in the socket and the presence of the pin
31 prevents Cornell’s arm 29 from being removed from the
opening 32, (3) the arm 29 and opening 32 of Cornell are not
in “mating relation” in the manner called for in claim 25, and
(4) the phrase “for rotation of said ball valve with said
shaft” appearing in the last paragraph of claim 25 means that
the shaft must rotate in order to rotate the ball valve, and
Cornell’s arm 19 does not operate in this manner.
As to (1), we simply do not agree with appellants that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007