Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
claims 4 through 7 generally for the reasons set forth by the
appellants in the brief and reply brief. We do not agree with
the examiner's view that the claimed "light absorbing shield"
reads on Shroud 40 in the Figures 2 and 3 showings of Fales
because there is no teaching in Fales that this element
absorbs any light at all as stated in the rejection of this
claim. Appellants' view that the shroud 40 is more like that
of a reflector argues against the patentability of claim 2 as
we have found earlier.
We sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8 for the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer that the
Figures 2 and 3 showings in Fales clearly show a drive shaft
24 of the air core gauge/driver 10 extending to attach itself
to the rotatable disc 30 clearly shown to be mounted about the
drive shaft 24. Appellants' arguments as to this claim at
pages 7 and 8 are more specific than the recitation itself in
referring to Figures 9-15 of the disclosed invention and that
the drive shaft is intended to penetrate the disc aperture.
All this amounts to an urging that we find patentability on
the basis of unclaimed features.
Still considering the initial stated rejection under
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007