Appeal No. 2005-0187
Appeal No. 09/758,513
The examiner’s position here is unsound for at least two
reasons. To begin with, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not view Huber’s face-sided cover to be a seal. The
presence of the double lip seal 28 between the cover and the
shaft 26 and the 0-ring seal 30 between the cover and the housing
16 belies any notion that the cover itself is a seal. Moreover,
the fair teachings of Huber, and more particularly the
perspective view of the scanning head 10 shown in Figure 1, do
not support the examiner’s determination that the cover abuts on
the checking element (pin holder 32). Indeed, the appellant’s
explanation (see page 3 in the reply brief) as to why the cover
does not abut on the checking element, while itself lacking
support in the reference, is far more compelling.
Thus, the examiner’s finding that the subject matter recited
in independent claims 1 and 39 is anticipated by Huber is not
well taken. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 39, and dependent
claims 3 through 5 and 10, as being anticipated by Huber.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007