Appeal No. 2005-0687
Application No. 10/097,510
because it is necessary to interpret the ring 90 of the Lakin
reference as both of these separate structural features recited
in claim 32" (page 14 of principal brief, first paragraph, last
sentence). However, we agree with the examiner that "[c]laim 32
does not require the annular end surface to be one of the
inherently two extreme end surfaces of the thrust collar nor does
claim 32 limit the oblique annular end surface to be not on the
flange" (page 6 of Answer, first paragraph, penultimate
sentence).
As for the requirement of claims 39 and 41 that the thrust
washer be an o-ring, we agree with the examiner that Williams
evidences the obviousness of selecting an o-ring for the thrust
washer of the admitted prior art. Although appellant argues that
"[t]here is nothing in Figure 1 or the Williams' reference to
suggest the claimed combination of the thrust collar and the
O-ring seal recited in claims 39 and 41" (page 19 of principal
brief, last paragraph), the claims do not require a combination
of a thrust collar and an o-ring. Manifestly, the claims recite
that the thrust washer is an o-ring. We note that appellant
persists in the Reply Brief with the mistaken assumption that
"the language of claim 39 requires the combination of the thrust
collar and the o-ring seal" (page 6 of Reply Brief, last
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007