Appeal No. 1999-1785
Application No. 08/512,656
and every feature of claim 11, we will thus sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) under Bechman.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 12,
15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Bechman. In that regard, we observe that
Bechman additionally discloses external member 19 defining at
least one groove for receiving the seal member 25 (appellant’s
claim 12), a seal member 25 disposed in the seat (appellant’s
claim 15), and an internal member 18 and external member 19
fitted together (appellant’s claim 18). Appellant’s arguments
again do not properly address the issues at hand. Appellant’s
arguments are primarily directed to the lubrication fitting of
Figure 4, rather than the bearing assembly itself (Bechman,
Figure 2). As before, since each and every feature of
appellant’s claims 12, 15 and 18 are disclosed in Bechman we
will, therefore, sustain the examiner’s rejection of theses
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We next review the examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007