Appeal No. 1999-0519
Application 08/728,224
view the recitation in claims 4 and 10 on appeal as merely
setting forth the broad proposition that the mass added to the
shaft may be in the form of a bearing assembly, rather than a
solid mass. While this recitation is certainly broad, we see
no reason why it should be considered to be indefinite.
Appellant discloses embodiments of the invention wherein the
mass added to the shaft is provided in the form of a bearing
assembly (see Figs. 11 and 12). The exact form of the bearing
assembly set forth in claims 4 and 10 would appear to be
irrelevant. Since we find that appellant’s claims are merely
broad, and not indefinite, it follows that the examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, will not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ha-
mada,
we share appellant’s view as expressed in the brief (pages 5
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007