Appeal No. 1998-0616
Application No. 08/614,347
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The § 102(b) rejection
We will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1 and 2.
The invention is directed to a control shaft arrangement.
With reference to the embodiment of the invention illustrated
in Figures 1-3 of the appellants’ drawings, the control shaft
arrangement defined by appealed claim 1 comprises a shaft
member 1 and at least one control element 2 having an aperture
5 which receives the shaft and at least one burr 15 raised on2
the shaft by displacement of shaft material so as to affix the
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, (1971) defines a “burr”2
as “7: a thin ridge or area of roughness produced in cutting or shaping metal
(as in drilling, turning, or blanking).”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007