Appeal No. 1999-0033
Application No. 08/514,255
Thus, with regard the rejection of the appealed claims based on Ryall, we are
authorized under 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) to select any one of the claims on appeal as a
representative claim and to affirm the examiner’s rejection of all of the claims based on
Ryall if the selected claim alone is unpatentable. Appellants’ statement on page 9 of the
brief that the appealed claims “stand together” does not meet the requirements necessary
for separately considering the patentability of each claim rejected on Ryall. In
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we therefore select claim 5 as the representative
claim for the rejection involving the Ryall patent.
With regard to the issues arising from the language in claim 5, our attention
focuses on the phrase “at least one of the vane member and the casing has an elastically
deformable portion . . .” Being prefaced by the recitation “at least one of,” this phrase
contemplates three alternative limitations: (1) the recitation that the vane member has the
elastically deformable portion, (2) the recitation that the casing has the elastically
deformable portion and (3) the recitation that the combination of the vane member and
the casing has the elastically deformable portion. For the purpose of reviewing the
rejection of claim 5, we will select the first alternative, namely the vane member. Thus,
claim 1 is readable as reciting that the vane member has the elastically deformable
portion.
With further regard to claim 5, the next phase “connected to another one of the
vane member and the casing . . .” appears to contemplate two alternative elements,
namely (1) “the vane member” and (2) “the casing.” For reviewing the rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007