Ex Parte Saranditis - Page 12

                   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