Appeal No. 2004-0579 Page 7
Application No. 09/647,126
While independent claim 26 is directed to an adjustable tappet assembly
comprising an internally threaded outer sleeve, an externally threaded internal shaft and
a seal device, claim 19 recites simply a seal device “for use in an adjustable tappet
assembly,” the device comprising a support element adapted to be carried by said
sleeve and carrying a seal for sealing between said sleeve and said shaft having a lip
portion arranged to engage an unthreaded surface portion of said shaft. We infer from
the examiner’s statement of the rejection of claims 19-33 that the examiner interpreted
claim 19 as requiring the seal to be positioned on the threaded spindle so as to engage
an unthreaded portion thereof. In other words, the examiner seems to have considered
claim 19 to be directed to the seal device in combination with the threaded shaft and
sleeve (i.e., to the tappet assembly).
Upon remand, the examiner should reconsider the scope of claim 19 to
determine whether (1) it is directed to the seal device only, (2) it is directed to the tappet
assembly or (3) the scope of claim 19 is unclear. If the examiner determines that claim
19 is directed to the tappet assembly, the examiner should then query whether there is
in fact any difference in scope between claim 19 and claim 26.2 If the examiner
determines that claim 19 is directed to the seal device only and thus does not require
2 37 CFR § 1.75(b) provides that “[m]ore than one claim may be presented provided they differ
substantially from each other and are not unduly multiplied.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007