Appeal No. 1999-1785
Application No. 08/512,656
together and reasons in support thereof.” However, we observe
that appellant has separately argued the patentability of
dependent claims 12, 15 and 18 through 20 apart from
independent claim 11 with a reasonable degree of specificity
(brief, pages 6-9). As a result of the foregoing, we will
treat claims 12, 15 and 18 through 20 separately, and not in
the manner stated by the examiner as standing or falling on
the limitations of claim 11.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Totten. Totten discloses (e.g., in Fig. 3) a butterfly
actuator having a bearing assembly comprising an internal
member 88, and an external member 92 disposed upon the
internal member. The external member 92 and the internal
member 88 form a seat for at least one seal member 104 between
the external member and the internal member for sealing
between the external member and the internal member. At least
a portion of one of the members extends beyond at least a
portion of the other of the members thereby forming the seat.
The appellant argues that “the claimed invention does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007