Appeal No. 1998-3314
Application 08/666,093
emasculates the language of claim 25, is redundant, or is
illogical. Instead, the claim language appellants have chosen
to employ is simply broad.3
Appellants’ request for rehearing is granted to the
extent of reconsidering our decision but is denied with
respect to making any changes thereto.
DENIED
3 In contrast, we note claim 2, which expressly calls for
the shaft to be coupled to the ball valve “to effect rotation
of said ball valve . . . in response to rotation of said
shaft” (emphasis added).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007