Appeal No. 1999-0641 Page 2
Application No. 08/536,654
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a flexible joint for rotating members (specification,
page 1). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim
1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is:
Naitou 1 JP 60-65909 Apr. 15, 1985
The following rejection is before us for review.2
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Naitou.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 13) and the answer (Paper No. 14) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective3
1A translation of this reference, prepared by the Patent and Trademark Office, is appended to this decision.
2According to the examiner (advisory action, Paper No. 10), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, set forth in the final rejection was overcome by the amendment filed March 12, 1998.
3We note that "said hub means" (emphasis added) in the last line of claim 3 lacks clear antecedent basis
and probably should be "said hub," in light of the amendments to claim 1. Although this informality does not render
the scope of the claim indefinite, it is deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution before the
examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007