Appeal No. 2005-2659
Application No. 09/881,108
For appellant’s response to the rejections reference is made to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the arguments of the
appellant and the examiner. As a result of this review, we have determined that neither
reference provides proper evidence of the lack of novelty of the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, the rejections on appeal are reversed.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the appellant’s claims on appeal do not
require the pinion to constantly contact the stopper ring when the device is installed and in
use. Accordingly, we believe both references satisfy the last clause of claim 1 requiring a
stopper having an abutting surface in abutting engagement with an end face of the pinion.
However, of moment to us is the limitation in the first clause of the claim wherein the
pinion is splined to a splined portion formed on the pinion shaft. Neither the pinion in
Schneider or Lafitte is splined to the pinion shaft as appellant argues in the Reply Brief. In
our view, this limitation from the claim preamble gives life and meaning to the further
recited structure of the claim. Consequently, this limitation of the preamble is entitled to
full patentable weight, and we are constrained to reverse the rejections of claims 1-5 on
appeal for this reason.
In summary, section 102 rejections based on Schneider and Lafitte are reversed.
REVERSED
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007