Appeal No. 1998-0560
Application 08/527,957
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 18) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 17)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper
No. 19) for a statement of Appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, it appears that there is a
problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, with
respect to claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17-22. Section 112,
fourth paragraph, requires that a dependent claim further
limit the claim from which it depends. Claims 2, 9, and 17
recite that the central hub member has a diameter of 24.9
mm, while claims 3-7, 11-15, and 18-22, which depend
therefrom, recite diameters of greater than 24.9 mm. Thus,
claims 3-7, 11-15, and 18-22 are inconsistent with and do
not further limit claims 3-7, 11-15, and 18-22. We leave it
to the Examiner to address this problem.
The Examiner acknowledges that "Kato et al do not
disclose the size of the hub, the central hub member, or the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007