Appeal No. 2002-0500 Page 12
Application No. 09/258,320
Claims 5-7, 9, 11, 20, 24, 25, and 26
The appellants argue claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 20, and 26 together. (Appeal Br. at 8-9,
10.) Rather than arguing the patentability of claim 11, they assert, "[c]laim 11 . . .
distinguishes for the further reasons discussed above." (Id. at 10.) The appellants do
not separately argue the patentability of claims 24 and 25. Therefore, claims 6, 7, 9,
11, 20, 24, 25, and 26 stand or fall with representative claim 5.
With this representation in mind, we address the two points of contention
between the examiner and the appellants. First, the examiner finds, "Takahashi clearly
teaches a groove between the ribs 26 which extends the length of frame 12. . . ."
(Supp. Examiner's Answer at 10.) The appellants argue, "[w]hat is created between the
space between the protrusions is not a groove, but simply a semi-cylindrical space.
A groove is defined as 'a long, narrow furrow or channel.' Clearly the semi-cylindrical
space 36 created by the protrusions 26 is not narrow, but a wide area." (Appeal Br.
at 8.) The examiner responds, "the semi-circular area is a groove." (Supp. Examiner's
Answer at 10.)
Turning to Takahashi, the semi-circular area in question "is [an] outer space 36
between the inner wall of the bearing holder 12 and the outer wall of the outer
cylindrical layer 34a except for supporting portions 26a." Col. 3, ll. 59-62. Figure 2, "a
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007