Appeal No. 2001-0783
Application 09/012,796
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)). It is our finding that these two discussed
embodiments of Kuroi anticipate appellants’ claims 1,
Appellants argue at page 7 of the brief that member
31 is not connected to tiller 17, but only to bar 32. Claim 1
is recited with open-ended “comprising” language, and nothing
therein precludes the presence of additional structure in the
steering mechanism. The bar 22, 32 is not the tie bar relied
upon as connecting to the second unit. Tie bar 23, 36
fulfills this requirement of the claimed subject matter.
These arguments apply with equal merit to the embodiment of
claim 11.
With respect to claims 2-4, Kuroi does not show a
ball joint on bracket 33 connecting member 31 to the tie rod
23, 36. The examiner has cited Rockhill for the disclosure of
ball joints at a plurality of locations in an outboard
steering linkage. In our view, it would have been obvious to
incorporate ball joint 23 of Rockhill for pivot joint 36a in
Kuroi for the self-evident advantage of minimizing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007