Appeal No. 2005-0187
Appeal No. 09/758,513
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issue with
respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 39 is
whether Huber meets the limitations in these claims relating to
the seal. Claim 1 requires a seal “which is disposed exteriorly
of the housing between the checking element and the housing and
which extends around a shaft by means of which the checking
element is driven, wherein the seal abuts on the checking element
and abuts on the housing.” Similarly, claim 39 recites a
monitoring device comprising a seal “which is disposed exteriorly
of the housing between the checking element and the end face of
the housing and which extends around said shaft, wherein the seal
abuts on the checking element and abuts on the end face of the
housing.”
The examiner considers these limitations to be met by the
face-sided cover of Huber’s housing 16 through which the shaft 26
passes. Figure 1 of the reference shows this cover, which is not
denoted by a reference numeral, as being screwed into the bore of
the housing 16 and as having a flange disposed between the end of
the housing 16 and the pin holder 32.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007