Appeal No. 2005-0156
Application No. 09/816,348
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 as being
anticipated by Moribayashi.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 as being
anticipated by Moribayashi since the appellants have not
challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing
these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 2, 7 and 10, each of which depends
from claim 1.
Claim 2 defines the reinforcing portion as being integrally
formed with the case body. Claim 7 requires that before the ring
portion is fixed, the outer circumferential surface of the
cylinder portion has a conic surface inclined in a direction such
that a diameter increases as a distance from the ring portion
increases. Claim 10 recites that the ring portion is disposed
between the cylinder portion and the stator. Suffice to say that
Moribayashi does not disclose any structure, including holder
plate 45, which meets these claim limitations.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007