Appeal No. 1999-1756
Application No. 08/499,100
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.
At the outset, we note that the preambles of the claims
are directed to "seal means." However, a reading of the
claims in their entirety reveals that the claims are in fact
directed to a vectoring thrust nozzle of a gas turbine engine,
the nozzle including a fixed collar having a spherical outer
surface, a gimbal ring surrounding the collar, a pair of
articulating clamshells pivotally "supported" [mounted] to
said gimbal ring and a pair of seals between the collar and
the clamshells. Additionally, we note that claim 1 recites a4
spherical outer surface of the fixed collar and a spherical
surface of each of the two clamshells. As we understand the
claim, the "said spherical surface" referred to in line 10 of
While this inconsistency between the preamble and the body of the4
claims is deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution before
the primary examiner, it is our opinion that the scope of the claims is clear.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007