Appeal No. 1999-0704 Page 9
Application No. 08/558,661
Turning now to claims 9 through 12, the appellants point out on page 3 of the reply
brief that claim 12 depends from claim 9, which requires a spirally extending guide. In light of
this emphasis on the "spirally extends" feature from claim 9, we interpret the appellants'
argument (brief, page 8, and reply brief, page 3) that "Kelly clearly fails to disclose a densely
arranged spirally extending guide" as being directed to all of claims 9 through 12. Having7
considered the entirety of Kelly's disclosure, we perceive no teaching or suggestion therein to
form the bearing surfaces (eye 66 and sleeve 68) of the Figure 12 embodiment in the form of a
spiral rather than as a series of discrete annular rings. While we acknowledge Kelly's
disclosure that the narrow bearing surfaces may comprise a taper helical wire coil (page 1 and
claim 5) or rifling along the bore (page 2 and claim 8), these teachings are directed to different
embodiments which do not include an eye and resilient sleeve as in the Figure 12 embodiment.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9 through 12.
Claim 13, which appears to be directed to the surface contours A1-A3 discussed in the
appellants' specification (pages 23 and 24) with particular regard to the embodiment of Figure
4, depends from claim 1 and further requires:
7The appellants' indication on page 5 of the brief that claims 9-11 stand or fall with claim 1 appears to us
to have been an inadvertent error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007