Ex parte GERBER et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-1478                                                        
          Application 08/742,327                                                      


               Appellants’ invention relates to an improved main shaft                
          in a coal pulverizer.  The main shaft includes gear center                  
          hold down threads dividing a yoke end from the other end of                 
          the main shaft.  A distal end of the yoke end includes a                    
          tapered yoke end terminating with a threaded portion.  The                  
          improvement comprises the portion of the main shaft beginning               
          at but not including the gear center hold down threads to and               
          including the yoke end and the tapered yoke end of the main                 
          shaft being nitride treated and the tapered yoke end having a               
          dry film lubricant applied thereon.2                                        


               Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal              
          and is reproduced below:                                                    
               1.  In a coal pulverizer having a main shaft, the main                 
          shaft including a yoke end at one end of the main shaft with                
          the yoke end including a tapered yoke end at a distal end                   
          thereof, the tapered yoke end of the main shaft terminating                 
          with a threaded portion, the main shaft further including gear              

               2Our review of the record has revealed that the amendment              
          to the specification requested in the preliminary amendment                 
          filed November 1, 1996 (Paper No. 8) has not been entered.                  
          The amendment was directed to line 2 of the amendment filed                 
          March 25, 1996 (Paper No. 3), to page 8, line 6 of the                      
          specification.  During any further prosecution before the                   
          examiner, it appears that either the amendment should be                    
          entered or the appellants should be notified of the non-entry.              
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007