Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
Likewise, the features of claim 11 are shown in the
combined teachings and showings of the references as just
explained. While the showing in Figure 1 of Watkins utilizes
spokes as
a means of supporting the outer periphery of the drum 3, the
figure 9 showing clearly indicates that a planar type of
flange is contemplated as well. The integral structure
resulting from the combination of teachings of the references
is consistent with the single piece shown of appellants'
attachment hub 138 in Figures 13-15.
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12
since there is no indication in the combined teachings of the
three references relied upon that the drum 3 of Watkins and
the rotatable disc 30 of Fales have a non-circular cross
section aperture or opening and a corresponding shape in the
drive shaft engaging portion of the hub 4 of Watkins for
cooperable engagement of the image disc on the axially
extending drive shaft engaging portion as recited in claim 12
on appeal. We note again that the examiner has not rejected
the features recited in claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 which
in turn is dependent on claim 12.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007