Appeal No. 1999-1478
Application 08/742,327
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over appellants’ admitted prior
art in view of Itoh or alternatively over appellants’ admitted
prior art in view of Connard and Itoh.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 12, mailed July 15, 1997) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 16, mailed April 13, 1998) for
the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’
brief (Paper No. 15, filed January 13, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
reference numerals, i.e. 14 and 22. Figure 2 of the present
application uses reference numeral 14 to designate the main
shaft and reference numeral 22 to designate a portion of the
main shaft. Therefore, it appears that on page 6, lines 12,
14 and 15 (i.e. the amendment to line 15 in paper No. 10), at
each occurrence, reference numeral 22 should be changed to
reference numeral 14.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007