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 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007