Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979
(figs. 1-3) as corresponding to the appellant’s second long
hole part (answer, page 3).
The examiner states that “the Examiner has carefully
reviewed appellant’s specification and has found appellant to
be silent on what is meant by a ‘first long hole part’ or a
‘second long hole part’ in particular” (answer, page 7). The
appellant’s specification discloses:
[0037] Two long hole parts 62 (the first long
hole part) and 64 (the second long hole part) are
provided on a wide area part 54B of the arm 54
with a predetermined distance therebetween, and
are placed roughly perpendicular to each other.
The shaft 48 is inserted into the long hole part
62, and the shaft 50 is inserted into the long
hole part 64.
[0038] Here, an external diameter of the shaft 48
and a width of the long hole part 62 are formed to
be substantially the same. When the shaft 48 moves
in the long hole part 62, the shaft 48 moves while
rubbing against the perimeter of the long hole part
62. Also, an external diameter of the shaft 50 and
the width of the long hole part 64 are formed to be
substantially the same. Thus, when the shaft 50
moves in the long hole part 64, the shaft 50 moves
while rubbing against the perimeter of the long
hole part 64.
Thus, contrary to the examiner’s finding, the appellant’s
specification is not silent regarding the meanings of “first
hole part” and “second hole part.”
The examiner argues that “[s]ince, it is unclear as to
what is a long hole part, the Examiner believes a suitable
interpretation maybe [sic] a part of a long hole or a long part
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013