Appeal No. 1999-1716 Page 7
Application No. 08/888,005
all limitations of the claim are found in the reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The French patent is directed to an apparatus for
transmitting rotary motion through a flex point, which point is
located at the center of swivel joint 11. Using the language
of claim 13 as a guide, the French reference discloses a “joint
defining the flex point,” for this language reads on the entire
device shown in Figures 1 and 2. The space defined by plates 3
and 4 and rods 5 and 6, which is best shown in Figure 1 of the
reference, constitutes the required “aperture at the center” of
the joint. The “rotatable flexible drive member placed within
the aperture” also is taught by the reference. In this regard,
we first point out that as for the requirement that the rotary
drive member be “flexible,” the connections disclosed in the
French reference meet that requirement to the same extent as
the constant velocity rotary drive members described in the
appellant’s application. Continuing on, to the extent that the
swivel joint shown in the drawings of the reference is
considered not to constitute a “drive” connection, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007