Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715
Examiner interpreted Herzhauser’s “attachment member 22” as being the
“shaft log” (Answer 8).
Appellant argues that Herzhauser’s attachment member 22 is not a
“shaft log.” (Br. 13). Rather, Appellant contends that as shown in
Appellant’s Figure 5, Herzhauser’s attachment member 22 is similar to
Appellant’s compression sleeve 128 (Br. 13).
The Examiner responds that Appellant has not set forth any structure
for the “shaft log” that would prohibit Herzhauser’s attachment member 22
from satisfying the “shaft log” claim feature (Answer 27-28).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that claim 18 is
unpatentable under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in view Price.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments noted above for two
reasons. First, Appellant has not provided any evidence that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “shaft log” is incorrect. As the Examiner stated, Appellant
did not specify any particular structure for the “shaft log” in claim 18 or his
Specification. The most Appellant states is that “[t]he shaft log 110 is
generally formed as a hollow cylindrical housing 122 with an outer flange
118” (Specification, ¶ [0022]). Attachment member 22 meets those
disclosed features as it is coaxial with propeller shaft 18 and has a outward
extending flange.
Second, in Appellant’s Figure 5 embodiment the containment vessel
300 is indirectly attached via concentric ring pieces (316a, 316b, 316c) and
flexible hose 124. Similarly, Herzhauser’s housing 14 is indirectly attached
to the element Appellant argues should be construed as corresponding to the
claimed “shaft log” via the interposed members comprising the seal
arrangement (i.e., attachment member 22, connector element 64, etc. to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013