Appeal No. 1998-0453
Application No. 08/381,306
spacer. (See brief at page 5.) Appellants argue that the claimed annular groove in the
outer circumference defines that the groove is formed in the entire outer circumference of
the spacer. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants. The examiner relies upon
the teaching of Brue with respect to element 32A shown in Fig. 4. (See answer at page 5.)
We disagree with the examiner. The cross section of Figure 2 is shown in Figure 4 and
the specification of Brue, at column 3, describes element 32A as one of three pads.
Appellants argue that the small “L” shaped surface of Brue is not a groove in the
circumference as claimed. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants. In our view of
Brue, if there are three distinct pads then the groove that the examiner relies upon would
not traverse the circumference of the spacer. If there is not a pad at a location, then there
cannot be a groove formed thereby. At most Brue teaches plural slots around the
circumference formed by the pads being recessed from the edge of the spacer. In our
view, using the examiner’s definition for annular as “forming or shaped like a ring,” it is
clear that the distinct indentations or recesses at the pads cannot form a ring which would
connote a continuous circular groove present between the distinct pads of Brue. Since
Brue does not disclose the use of an annular groove, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 13 and its dependent claim 16.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007