Appeal No. 2000-1304
Application No. 08/994,974
rejection of claims 4 through 6 as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Sheen.
Finally, independent claim 7 is more specific than
independent claims 1 and 14 in that it requires the outer
surface of the right circular hollow cylindrical sleeve to be
harder than the material of the outer surface of the hub. In
short, the examiner’s conclusion (see page 5 in the answer)
that the admitted prior art and Sheen would have suggested a
method embodying this feature has no factual basis in the fair
teachings of these prior art items.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7, or of claims 8 through 13
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Sheen.2
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed with respect
2Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should consider whether the limitations recited
in claim 8 find clear support or antecedent basis in the
remainder of the specification as required by 37 CFR §
1.75(d)(1).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007