Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
discussed in the brief. On the other hand, the Advisory action
does not indicate that this rejection is overcome by the
amendment after final rejection filed as Paper No. 8 on May 3,
1999. We therefore treat the rejection on the merits.
The preamble of claim 14 only recited a hub whereas the body
of this claim recited a hub/clamp/rotor member. The concerns
raised by the examiner at page 4 of the answer appear to us to
have been obviated by the entry of the amendment since the
preamble and the body of claim are now set forth in consistent
language. Therefore, the rejection is reversed.
Next, we address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9
and 11 as being anticipated by Obara under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
accordance with appellant's grouping of claims at page 4 of the
brief, and in accordance with appellant's arguments as to this
rejection that begin at page 7 of the brief, appellant presents
no arguments as to independent claim 9 and all the respective
dependent claims encompassing this rejection. Therefore, we
treat claim 1 as the representative claim for purposes of our
analysis as to this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007