Appeal No. 2000-1240
Application 09/094,067
representative claim 1 on appeal, these claims are also rejected.
Because of the prolific use of the future end use language
associated with the word ?for" in claim 14, it appears to be much
broader in subject matter than the subject matter encompassed by
representative claim 1 anyway, and fewer elements are recited in
claim 14. Moreover, the key features of the support structure
and the broadly claimed clamp structure are also set forth in
claim 14 in a corresponding manner as in claim 1 on appeal. We
note again that the integral nature of the teaching of the rotor
9 in Obara is provided by the moulding process noted earlier at
column 7, lines 15-18 of this reference. This teaching suggests
the moulding of a plastic-type material set forth in the
dependent claims. In a manner consistent with the examiner not
rejecting dependent claim 3, we do not reject dependent claim 16
since it has corresponding features as claim 3 relating to the
clamping structure being embodied in the form of
circumferentially spaced fingers.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of claims
14-19 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Obara is sustained, as is the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007