Appeal No. 2000-0337
Application No. 08/825,449 Page 5
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 3) that hub
126 of Chuta has an inner periphery with a bonding region
including a plurality of contact regions in contact with spacer
125, and first and second recesses 154 and 152, which provide a
stress reduction portion. The examiner considers (answer, pages
3 and 4) the bonding region to be divided into thirds, where two-
thirds is made up of the recesses (one-third each), and the other
third is the plurality of contact regions in contact with spacer
125. The examiner further asserts (answer, page 4) that as shown
in figures 3 and 4 of Chuta, “the bonding region is positioned
axially between ball bearings 122/124 such that it is not axially
aligned with bearings 122/124. The bonding region is also
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007