Ex Parte Wilding - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0202                                                        
          Application No. 09/719,014                                                  


          containing a ball or roller bearing having an inner and outer               
          portion which can rotate relative to each other and a second                
          portion formed from a metallic material comprising a rim (Brief,            
          page 2).  The outer surface of the outer portion of the first               
          portion has at least one recess while the surface of the second             
          portion is deformed, such that the resulting deformation(s)                 
          protrude(s) into the recess(es) on the outer surface of the first           
          portion to secure the second portion to the first portion (id.).            
          A copy of illustrative independent claim 11 is attached as an               
          Appendix to this decision.                                                  
               The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as unpatentable over appellant’s Figures 1-4 (admitted prior art)           
          in view of Sutowski, U.S. Patent No. 2,935,357, issued                      
          May 3, 1960 (Answer, page 3, referring to the rejection as set              
          forth in the final Office action dated July 23, 2002, Paper                 
          No. 15).  We reverse the sole rejection on appeal essentially for           
          the reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth                 
          below.                                                                      
          OPINION                                                                     
               In the Answer, the examiner refers to the rejection as “set            
          forth in prior Office Action, Paper No. 15.”  Answer, page 3.  In           
          the final rejection in Paper No. 15, the examiner concludes that            

                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007