Appeal No. 2002-0354 Page 5
Application No. 09/293,455
Here, Wrobel discloses a "bearing support [for] the shaft of [a] driving motor."
Col. 1, l. 12. "FIG. 3 is a partial cross-sectional view, on an enlarged scale, of a first
embodiment of the bearing support. . . ." Col. 2, ll. 3-5. Therein, the "shaft is axially
secured in one direction by means of a thrust washer 43 and a retaining ring 44."
Col. 3, ll. 41-42. We find that the Figure shows that the reference's thrust washer 43
and retaining ring fit within an enlarged portion of a central bore of a "bearing unit 15."
Col. 2, ll. 47-48. Therefore, we are persuaded that teachings from the Wrobel1 would
have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Turning to the positions of the examiner and the appellant, rather than reiterate
those positions in toto, we address the two points of contention between the examiner
and the appellant. First, the examiner asserts, "Wrobel teaches motivation in that the
bearing with the retainer during operation and reduces noise (col. 1, lines 12-22)."
(Examiner's Answer at 5-6.) The appellant argues, "the Examiner has failed to provide
any motivation as to why one skilled in the art would combine these two references as
he has suggested." (Reply Br. at 2.)
1In sustaining a rejection based on a combination of references, the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences may rely on only one of the references without the
reliance "amount[ing] to rejection on a new ground." In re Bush, 296 F2d 491, 496, 131
USPQ 263,267 (CCPA 1961). See also In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ
441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966) ("We think legal support for our reliance on Harris alone,
under these circumstances, can be found in In re Bush. . . .").
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007